Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL By Order

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 26 January.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
(By Order)

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 26 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Greenham Common

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to how many persons have been arrested at Greenham common to the latest available date.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The chief constable tells us that up to 18 January there had been 1,175 arrests at Greenham common or in relation to actions there.

Mr. Parry: Of those who have been arrested, how many have been prosecuted and how many convicted? In view of the growing opposition of the general public to the deployment of missiles, as shown by opinion polls, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the imposition of punitive fines on those people and intimidation through arrests make a mockery of British justice and democracy?

Mr. Brittan: The answer to the last part of the question is no, Sir. There is no question of intimidation or punitive fines.
The latest date for which I have figures is 9 January. By then, 623 cases had been dealt with, 608 people had been convicted and 15 had been acquitted. The most common penalty was a fine of about £20.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what would make a mockery of British

justice would be the notion that people who broke the law could get away with it simply by declaring themselves to be peace people?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of some of the disgusting—I use the word advisedly—practices to which police officers are subjected by some of the heroines of Greenham common? Should not those practices also be condemned, and should not the police be complimented on their extraordinary patience and restraint in the face of that provocation?

Mr. Brittan: I have every sympathy with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The police have had an enormous amount to put up with and, like many others in the area, are becoming thoroughly fed up, although they are doing their duty manfully and successfully.

Mr. Flannery: We all know how many policemen have been injured doing their duty, but is there any method of finding out how many of the women have been injured and hospitalised?

Mr. Brittan: I do not have that information.

Mr. Flannery: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman get it?

Mr. John Page: Is it not time that stronger measures were used against the campers, who are disrupting the life of local people, causing injury to the police in the execution of their duty and bringing about a great increase in costs to ratepayers and taxpayers?

Mr. Brittan: There is no doubt that the so-called peace camp at Greenham has become a consistent nuisance to the residents of the area, and a great expense. Even when those involved are not in breach of the criminal law, they are trespassing or are in breach of byelaws, or both. I wish to consider further the strong feelings understandably expressed by my hon. Friend.

"Stockport Messenger" Picketing (Arrests)

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Cheshire police into how many of those arrested outside the Stockport Messenger offices in Warrington during the recent picketing of those offices are not United Kingdom citizens.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The chief constable tells me that two of those arrested were born in Dublin, and are believed to be citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Leigh: How many of those arrested had nothing to do with Warrington or the printing industry?

Mr. Waddington: On the worst night, 86 people were arrested, and only six of them were found to have anything whatever to do with the printing industry. They came from all over the country and included students, a school teacher, a social worker and even a young girl of 16 still at school.

Mr. Bottomley: Has any information come through official trade union channels about whether the unions disapprove of the fact that more than 80 per cent. of those who were arrested came from outside that trade and business?

Mr. Waddington: I am afraid that I know of no such denunciation.

Electoral Law

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consultations with political parties on changes in electoral law.

Mr. Brittan: My colleagues in the other Home Departments and I wrote to the leaders of the political parties represented in the House on 1 November seeking their views on the principal recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. We are now considering the replies we have received and expect to announce our conclusions shortly.

Mr. Beith: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the proposal for a £1,000 deposit represents a requirement on a national political party to deposit more than £500,000 for the duration of a campaign? Will that not be seen as an attempt by a wealthy political party to undermine its opponents?

Mr. Brittan: One has to consider not only the level of the deposit but the threshold at which it is forfeited. We shall need to consider all those matters in the round, taking account of the fact that when the deposit was fixed in 1918 it was set at £150. The Select Committee said that there was a very strong case for change. The Government's views will be expressed in a White Paper which will be published shortly.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the White Paper should mention those on holiday who are at present unable to vote and also those—and in some parts of the country they are quite numerous— who were prevented from voting at the previous election because of local government error? That important point should be considered, and there should be a way of rectifying that error.

Mr. Brittan: I shall look into that point about error. I have long made it clear that it is my view and that of the Government that there is no reason why going on holiday should be regarded as something that leads to one being disfranchised.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Ulster Unionist party would be very happy to enter into discussions with him, at his convenience, on electoral law issues in general, in addition to the more limited discussions that we have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that indication.

Mr. Adley: I return to the question on the Order Paper and the subject of postal votes for holiday makers. Although everyone obviously hopes that agreement can be reached with the political parties, will my right hon. and learned Friend give a categorical assurance that, in the absence of any such agreement, that matter—about which many of our constituents feel very strongly—will be dealt with separately, and immediately?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the desirability of reaching agreement, but, equally, after engaging in consultations we shall have

to take a view and decide what action to take. Obviously no one expects any one interest group to have a veto on proposals which otherwise seem right.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Home Affairs Committee invited some parties—but not all the parties in the House—to give evidence? Would it not be wiser to recommend holding a Speaker's Conference before going on with any such changes? If there are to be changes about holiday voting, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the registering of votes in more than one location is banned, as that practice will not be necessary if people have the right to vote when on holiday?

Mr. Brittan: On the question of a Speaker's Conference, I rather agree with Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, who did not think that the practice was a satisfactory way of considering changes in electoral law. We have the Select Committee's view and I have engaged in consultations with the leaders of the political parties in the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With some of them.

Mr. Brittan: That process began on 1 November and the time has come to take the matter forward. I do not believe that a ban on multiple registration could be put into practice, but I agree that plural voting is, and should remain, a criminal offence.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people do not agree with the Select Committee's suggestion that citizens of the Irish Republic and other non-British citizens in this country should be entitled to vote at United Kingdom elections?

Mr. Brittan: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but I should not care to express a view on majority opinion in this country.

Mr. Skinner: How will the Secretary of State react when he hears the different views of the different party leaders? If, as seems likely, to judge from their actions on other issues, the Liberal leader's version of what he wants differs from that of the leader of the Social Democratic party, will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that if he stretches the consultations over a long period there is a fair chance that both will change their minds during that process and finish on opposite sides of the fence again?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is better able than I am to gauge these matters. We must proceed as best we can.

Postal Voting

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to permit postal voting at parish council elections; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): The Government are considering possible changes in absent voting arrangements, including the introduction of postal voting at parish and community council elections.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not obvious, especially in view of the correspondence that we have received, that the


councils are not enthusiastic about this proposal? Does the Under-Secretary agree that it is an anomaly that electors can vote by post at every election except that of parish councils? Is the cost not of secondary importance and, indeed, negligible? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that parish councils play a big role in local affairs and that it is simple democracy that people should have a right to vote at such elections?

Mr. Mellor: I accept that that is the only form of elections at which postal votes are not allowed. That is why we are examining this matter and have asked the National Association of Local Councils to look into the practicalities of such voting. The hon. Gentleman said that the cost was negligible, but I must point out that as long ago as 1980 it was estimated that the cost would be about £250,000 and would add 50 per cent. to the cost of running these elections. We are looking at this matter and will make our views known.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is an urgent and important matter for many disabled people, because without postal votes they are disfranchised? Moreover, should we not consider making it illegal for any building or structure which is inaccessible to disabled people to be used as a polling station?

Mr. Mellor: I have every sympathy with the problems of disabled people and the right hon. Gentleman's point is one that we would want to bear in mind. I hope that returning officers, who have the responsibility of selecting polling stations, will always bear in mind the need to ensure that disabled people who wish to vote have ready access to polling stations.

Air Weapons

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent national publicity campaign on the misuse of air weapons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The campaign had two main aims: to encourage owners and users of air weapons to use them responsibly and safely, and to educate people about the existing law. The campaign was launched in London and Edinburgh in November to coincide with the pre-Christmas period. It is too early to assess what effect the campaign has had, but we shall evaluate it with the help of the police and others.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that it is too early to form a considered judgment on whether the campaign has been beneficial, but during the next few months will my right hon. Friend carefully monitor reports of the misuse of air weapons, especially when that results in injuries to people or animals? In the meantime, will he give a pledge to the House that he will keep an open mind about the need to tighten the complicated law and regulations on the misuse of these weapons?

Mr. Hurd: We are not thinking of introducing further firearms legislation, but I note my hon. Friend's point. It is worth noting that between 1981 and 1982 the number of offences involving air weapons fell by 5 per cent. in England and Wales and by 6 per cent. in Scotland, but we are certainly not complacent about this matter.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister consider running a national publicity campaign against the misuse of crossbows? Will be hear that in mind when he is reviewing the legislation on other weapons?

Mr. Hurd: We are watching carefully the evidence about crossbows which comes to us.

Miss Fookes: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should introduce legislation to control airguns and crossbows instead of spending time on publicity campaigns, which I believe can be of only limited value.

Mr. Hurd: The legislation on air weapons is already fairly tough. Most of the incidents which come to the attention of the police or others involve the commission of an offence under existing legislation.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Skinner: You have only five years left, Robert.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that although we welcome the Gun Sense is Good Sense campaign, it is clearly inadequate in both intention and effect, especially as there are about 4 million air rifles in circulation and such weapons are increasingly used in the commission of serious crime, being responsible for about 2,000 accidents every year, many of them serious? Is it not time to do as the Minister's hon. Friends have suggested and embark on a more vigorous publicity campaign against abuse and review the legislation?

Mr. Hurd: The House is clearly delighted at the elevation of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps because he has not yet had time to study these matters in detail, I believe that he is rushing to unjustified conclusions about the campaign, although I note his suggestions.

Solvent Abuse

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any evidence of inmates who have abused solvents needing treatment in prisons and other custodial institutions: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: There are indications from a number of young offender establishments that a substantial proportion of inmates may have a history of solvent abuse. Some establishments are taking specific initiatives aimed at this problem. We are considering how to encourage and coordinate those initiatives.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that at Ashford remand centre and some other penal establishments for people under the age of 18 some of the inmates are beyond all psychiatric and medical help— indeed, beyond coherent life outside— as a result of glue sniffing? Will he seek powers to prosecute people who sell solvents to youngsters under the age of 18, as it is vital that something should be done?

Mr. Mellor: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Greville Janner.

Mr. Mellor: I am quite happy not to answer the last question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may let you know the next time a question gives me difficulty.
We are aware of the problem of glue-sniffing in penal establishments and a great deal of work is being done to deal with it, especially in establishments for young persons. As for making the sale of solvents unlawful, in the large consultation exercise carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security, very few of the 130 groups responding favoured that solution. Solvents are contained in a wide range of domestic products, so such a move would not be practicable, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in consultation with retailers, is bringing out a set of guidelines to help shop staff to identify solvent abusers so that the substances are not sold to them.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that his delayed answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that the terrifying spread of solvent abuse and glue-sniffing cannot be dealt with by a voluntary code? Will he introduce legislation at once to impose heavy fines and prison sentences on people who push glue and solvents in the knowledge that they will be abused, whether to people under 18 or to anyone else?

Mr. Mellor: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are considering the state of English law in relation to the case in Scotland where it was alleged that glue-sniffing kits were being sold. There is, however no evidence to suggest that that is the problem in England, where the problem is far more likely to be the sale in good faith of items which can be abused, which include a wide range of household items, to people who then abuse them. We take the problem very seriously, but we believe that education and offering assistance to those who sniff solvents, together with the police power to take young people found sniffing glue to a place of safety, is far more likely to deal with the situation than the imposition of criminal penalties as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Anti-terrorist Action

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the Metropolitan police in antiterrorist activity during the Christmas recess.

Mr. Brittan: During the recess the Metropolitan police continued their inquiries following the series of explosions which took place in London during the pre-Christmas period. The main thrust of the investigation is directed towards following up the very large number of statements made following the Harrods explosion and the forensic analysis of the evidence collected at the scene.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole House and the country support the police in this dangerous and difficult work? Can he say whether the strong measures that he announced to the House just before Christmas, including extra police deployed in counter-terrorism activity, are still in force?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of support for the police. The Metropolitan police are continuing with the measures introduced after the Harrods attack, including the availability of bomb threat vehicles on 24-hour patrol and increased CID and Special Branch officers.

Mr. Alexander: One of the sick and nasty aspects of the terrorist activity must have been the number of bomb

hoaxers at the time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend commend the vigilance of the telephone authorities and the police in apprehending those perpetrators and, of course, the stiff sentences that were handed out? Is he in a position to say how many hoaxers there were, and how many of them were apprehended?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the really wildly anti-social behaviour, to put it very mildly, of people who engage in hoaxes. It is difficult to assess the total number, because it is not always possible to distinguish between people who are making a report which they know to be false and those reporting something which they believe to be genuine but turns out not to be. The burden on the police is absolutely enormous, and it interferes with the work in a way in which the whole House would condemn when people make a hoax call.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Home Secretary recall that when he made his statement to the House on 19 December and was asked about the possibility of car parking bans he said that, on the advice of the Commissioner, he thought that such bans would not be helpful, yet it appears that since then there have been bans on Harrods and other possible target buildings? I wonder whether the policy has changed and whether the Home Secretary could give the House some more information about it, as it seems to put the terrorists in a position of not knowing where they can park vehicles, which is surely helpful?

Mr. Brittan: No, the general policy has not changed. The position, as I indicated to the House, is that I consulted the Commissioner, who told me that the possibility of a general ban, as opposed to any particular prevention of parking on a limited basis for a particular time, had been carefully considered but that he did not think it would materially asssist in reducing the risk of terrorist bomb incidents in London. In considering this the House will, of course, bear in mind the very considerable experience which the Commissioner had in handling matters of this kind when he was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Nuclear Attack (Casualties)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to revise the Government's estimate of the likely casualties after a nuclear attack.

Mr. Hurd: We expect to be able to publish revised information about the blast and radiation effects of nuclear weapons in the course of the year. We cannot estimate the likely casualties which would depend on many unforseeable matters, including, of course, the nature of any attack.

Mr. Strang: Will the Government accept that their calculations have massively underestimated the likely casualties arising from various nuclear attack scenarios? In particular, does the Minister accept that these calculations fail to take account of the additional radiation arising from the blast destruction of buildings?

Mr. Hurd: We are updating our estimates and information and that will be published. One of the difficulties about this subject is the way in which some people persist in believing that the only possibility worth considering is a massive nuclear attack. That is simply not


so. Civil defence planning and training must deal with a whole range of possibilities, including, of course, conventional attack.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend please make it clear that a increasing number of countries are capable of joining the nuclear powers and therefore any hostilities of this sort could come from one of those, which would create a very different scale of casualties from that following action by one of the super powers? Therefore, it would be quite wrong to reject civil defence purely and merely because some people believe that a major confrontation is quite incomprehensible.

Mr. Hurd: That is a valid point, but even if one is thinking of the two main alliances, it is conceivable to imagine a period of conventional warfare.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is it not a fact that if there were an all-out nuclear attack life on this island would cease to exist? What is the Minister's estimate of the number of people in this country who have access to nuclear shelters? If he is to look at the figures, will he read the document issued by the British Medical Association, which estimated figures much higher than those given by the Government?

Mr. Hurd: We have discussed this with the BMA, which, I am glad to say, is now co-operating with us in producing guidance on what could be done to help medical services in such circumstances. Nobody is underestimating the appalling consequences of a nuclear attack, but many people would survive, particularly from the consequences of radiation, and they could be saved. I have never understood the argument that because not every one could be saved, no attempt should he made to save anyone.

Immigration

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how a man applying to come to the United Kingdom to join his wife or fiancee can prove that it is not his primary purpose to come to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Waddington: There is no absolute criterion. Each application must be examined individually. In applying the rules approved by Parliament we require an applicant to give a full explanation of the circumstances of his marriage or proposed marriage and of his intention to live with his bride in the United Kingdom rather than in his own country. This process provides ample opportunity for an applicant to demonstrate that his main reason for marrying was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom for settlement.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that the Kafkaesque rule is being used to prevent many young Asian British women from having the right to choose to marry whom they please and is separating many young families? Will he issue instructions on how the rule is to be interpreted? Or will he continue to allow entry certificate officers to use it to refuse whomsoever they choose, remembering that it is for the applicant impossible to prove the point?

Mr. Waddington: I do not agree with the last proposition advanced by the hon. Lady. Entry clearance officers receive guidance on a wide range of matters, and it does not appear to me that this rule is very difficult to

apply. Entry clearance officers interpret the plain words of the rules, which do not prevent arranged marriages but prevent marriage from being used by men just to get here.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. and learned Friend review the system by which visitors and potential immigrants can sometimes use Members of Parliament as a means of extending their potential stay? Although hon. Members are, generally speaking, quite capable of dealing with such issues, they are seldom in a position to make an objective judgment as to whether such people should stay in this country for a long time.

Mr. Waddington: That is a different matter. It is not for me to suggest that hon. Members should not have the right to come to me and make representations about individual constituency cases.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister stop using the argument about recourse to public funds as a way of refusing entry to husbands and male fiancés? Women who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed should not be penalised for living with their husbands, or from marrying.

Mr. Waddington: It is not a question of my having recourse to the argument about public funds. The rules, which were approved by Parliament as recently as last February, say that it shall be a qualification for admission as a wife or female fiancée that a person will not become a charge on public funds, and that seems to be perfectly reasonable.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the most reprehensible discrimination is now being officially practised against United Kingdom citizens just because they are of Asian origin? Is he further aware that apart from the cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred, where United Kingdom citizens find it almost impossible to prove a negative—that they will live together as man and wife and that that is the only reason for their marriage—these practices now extend to registrars of marriages uniquely asking Asian citizens to produce passports before agreeing to conduct their weddings?
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that elderly relatives and family visitors are increasingly being subjected to interrogation, for example at Heathrow, in a way that is not exercised against any other visitors or citizens coming to this country? Does he appreciate the repulsive nature of these growing practices and the effect that they are having on good community relationships, which I know he and the Home Secretary wish to establish, and will he kindly agree to review them so as to satisfy British citizens of Asian origin?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot accept that discrimination is exercised by our immigration officers. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the legislation expressly provides that the rules shall be applied by our immigration officers without regard to race, religion or creed, and therefore I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's propositions. Our immigration officers carry out a difficult task extremely well.

Press Correspondence (Police Inquiries)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to police


authorities about the circumstances in which police inquiries may be made about those who write letters to the press.

Mr. Brittan: The question of the particular inquiries to be made in any case must be for the chief officer of a force to decide in all the circumstances.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Home Secretary accept that considerable concern remains about the way in which Mrs. Madeline Haigh, who lives in Sutton Coldfield and was the subject of an Adjournment debate, was investigated and lied to by the Special Branch—which is not in any way denied—because of letters that she had written to the local press about cruise missiles Will the Home Secretary, having studied the case, give clear guidance to police forces, including the Special Branch, to the effect that other citizens should not be subject to the type of harassment and infringement of civil liberties that Mrs. Haigh experienced last year?

Mr. Brittan: The chief officers of police, and myself for that matter, fully recognise that the fact that somebody holds or expresses particular opinions cannot by itself justify action by the police. In the case of Mrs. Haigh, the chief constable has stated publicly that the original information did not warrant the attention that it was given. In the debate on 21 December 1983 reference was clearly made to the report which identified what had gone wrong in that case and the action taken by the chief constable.

Mr. Kaufman: In this year of 1984, above all, ought not the Home Secretary to stamp hard upon such a disquieting manifestation of the snooper state?

Mr. Brittan: As the chief constable investigated the matter and explained the position extremely candidly in a way which I should have thought would command respect, I do not think that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman is justified.

Prison Statistics

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women were in prison at the most recent count.

Mr. Brittan: On 13 January 1984 there were 40,930 males and 1,387 females in prison department custody.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that considerable public support exists for his efforts to reduce the prison population? By how many does he hope to reduce the numbers of prisoners?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that it is possible to give an estimate of the numbers at any specific time, because so much is dependent upon the level of crime in the courts. I believe that the reduction in the minimum qualifying period for parole, the efforts that we are making to reduce the number of fine defaulters who are currently in prison and the other action that is being taken, will have a positive effect in the direction that my hon. Friend calls for and commends.

Mr. Ashley: How many prisoners have been convicted on the evidence of Home Office forensic scientists, especially that of the discredited scientist Dr. Clift? Is there any truth in press reports that the two-year old investigation into the cases of Dr. Clift is complete but unpublished, and that no fewer than 12 cases are to be

referred to the Court of Appeal? If that is the position, why was Fleet street informed before the House of Commons? Is it not time that the Home Secretary made a full statement in the House?

Mr. Brittan: It is correct to say that the review referred to by the right hon. Gentleman has been completed. I intend to announce its outcome very shortly.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is never to allow prison capacity to determine sentencing policy? Will he inform the House of the latest figures for the prison building programme, which is designed to meet the problem?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The prison building programme, which was initiated by my predecessor, is being extended and accelerated. By 1991 the programme will provide 6,600 places in 14 prisons and a further 4,000 places as a result of redevelopment in existing prisons, which, on present trends, should lead to the end of overcrowding.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one consequence of the figures he has given is that prisoners are still being kept on remand in police cells? Is he aware also that one man has died in a police cell since the new year? The promises which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made last year and reiterated in the article that appeared in The Times on 4 January seem rather hollow.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed, because my promise has been fulfilled. There were no prisoners in police cells over the new year and there are none today. Since the new year only a few prisoners have been held overnight in police cells, and nearly all of them were taken to prison the following day. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is entirely different from the use of police cells for regular custody, which is a process that has come to an end. The hon. Gentleman could do more to show appreciation for what the prison department has achieved in accordance with my undertaking.

Ms. Richardson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a high proportion of women prisoners, especially in Holloway, have been incarcerated for petty offences such as non-payment of prostitution fines and shoplifting fines? Does he accept that imprisonment is not necessarily the best way of dealing with the problems of these women, especially in view of the fact that there is a high proportion of drugs used in Holloway prison? Will he try to convince the House that he has some sensible options to offer in dealing with this problem?

Mr. Brittan: Women who need not be in prison should not be imprisoned for a moment longer than is necessary, and I have referred in previous answers to some of the initiatives that have been taken. A circular is shortly to be issued to the courts on fine enforcement. It is aimed specifically at promoting effective enforcement without the need to commit to prison. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear in mind that we are giving serious consideration to the implementation of section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which will enable the courts to order a defaulter


to undertake community service. I hope that she will accept that real steps are being taken to deal with some of the problems that she has identified.

Immigrants (Repatriation)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his review of the administrative criteria governing the repatriation scheme under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: The review of the criteria has been completed arid we propose to make a number of changes. We shall shortly be issuing a revised circular to local authorities and other interested bodies describing them. In consultation with the DHSS, we have also completed a review of the feasibility of combining the section 29 scheme with similar arrangements operated under supplementary benefit legislation. We have decided that there should be a single principal repatriation scheme based on the section 29 scheme. The effects of this change will also be described in the new circular.

Mr. Proctor: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his political courage in reviewing these schemes, but may I press on him the importance of ensuring that the schemes are administered by a Government Department?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants. The ISS has long experience of immigration welfare work. If we did not use the ISS, we would have to provide finance and staff for a separate unit within central Government.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear, whenever he addresses his mind to this issue both inside and outside the House, that there can be no opportunity for mass repatriation of Asians or West Indians, and that those people should be encouraged to take British citizenship as fast as they can? We are talking about the third generation—the babies of the babies—and pure racism lies behind the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor).

Mr. Waddington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is quite wrong to give those who are lawfully settled here the impression that they are unwelcome and that we want them to clear off. However, it is right to give help to those who genuinely want to go but cannot afford to do so.

Wandsworth Prison

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited Wandsworth prison.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet visited Wandsworth prison, but my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State did so on 10 October last year.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that Wandsworth prison, like many similar establishments, is overcrowded and lacks amenities? It is very old and there is a continuing problem of staffing. He will be aware that the new prison building programme will be of help. However, does he not agree that the only real solution to the continuing prison problems—the Home Secretary has announced figures

today—is to begin to have meaningful reductions in the numbers in prison? When will we see the Government taking action to achieve that?

Mr. Hurd: That will take time. Meanwhile, as the hon. Member indicated, there is a big programme of renovation at Wandsworth, costing £10 million. Not only will this increase the accommodation available for prisoners, but there will be provision for new staff. It will also improve standards inside the prison.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Eggar: Has my right hon. Friend noted reports of discussions between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm yesterday? Does she hope, like me, that the Russians will return to the negotiating table following the proposals from the United States? Does she not think that the way to true disarmament is through painstaking discussion and negotiation rather than through the simpleminded proposal of the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year advocating one-sided disarmament?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the talks that took place between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko. They were lengthy and they must have led to greater knowledge and understanding of one another's viewpoint. As my hon. Friend says, there is no substitute for detailed disarmament talks. There is no hope of getting the Russians back to the table unless we have something to negotiate with, which we should not have had if we had already renounced nuclear weapons.

Mr. Steel: In advance of today's debate has the Prime Minister read the two reports issued yesterday of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Citizens Advice Bureaux about the Government's housing benefit scheme? Will she accept that the conclusions of the reports are correct and that the Government's proposals will widen the poverty trap?

The Prime Minister: I have not read those reports in detail, but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that housing benefit now costs some £3·7 billion per year. It is very much up on what it was. It applies to one family in three. There has to be a limit to the amount that can be given in housing benefit, bearing in mind that each and every penny comes from the other two families unless it comes from the taxation of those who get the benefit. Every extra item of public expenditure is put on the working population.

Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister keep on giving the impression that £3·7 billion is new money that is a gift from the Government? Does she know that under the changes proposed by the Government a 65-year-old widow with £75 weekly income from an occupational pension, which was paid for whilst in work, and a national insurance pension, who is paying £23 per week in rent and


rates, will lose £4·52 income per week? Is not the Prime Minister ashamed of taking money from people like that? Will she instruct the Secretary of State to give notice in this afternoon's debate that these proposals will be cancelled?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We are spending £3·7 billion this year, an increase over and above inflation of 80 per cent. on spending under the Labour Government. The reductions in housing benefit that have been announced begin to concentrate help on those most in need. No one on supplementary benefit and no pensioner with an income of less than £9·75 above the level of retirement pension need lose by the changes.

Mr. Kinnock: I am more than willing to give credit where it is due, even to this Government, but what justification can there be for people on this level of income to be given a little bit with one hand when great armfuls are taken back with the other? Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? Will she get rid of the amendment to the scheme? Will she instruct the Secretary of State to do so or will she enjoy the ignominy of being a robber of some of the poorest in society?

The Prime Minister: I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some households in receipt of benefit with the main earner well above the average earnings — [Interruption.] I said "No" right at the beginning, had the right hon. Gentleman been listening carefully, which I do not expect him to do. He speaks of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, but I point out that this happens in many cases with welfare benefits, and comes from the fact that we are taxing people so highly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. All this noise takes time out of Question Time.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted with that response, because almost every Opposition Member asks for extra expenditure, which means extra taxation. They will not accept the answer from the Government that we are trying to reduce public expenditure and to lower taxation. People are paying taxes from one pocket and having to seek means-tested benefit for the other. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek reduced public expenditure, leading to reduced taxation.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady was elected to cut taxes and raise benefit. She promised that she would do both but has failed to do either. Is it not time to give an explanation more convincing than the dodges she pulls twice a week?

The Prime Minister: With regard to taxation, we have reduced direct taxation—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman tackles me. The promise in the 1979 manifesto was:
We shall cut income tax at all levels".
The basic rate was reduced from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent. We promised to cut absurdly high marginal rates of tax, and higher rates were considerably reduced. We promised to raise tax thresholds, and income tax allowances have been raised by 6 per cent. more than inflation. We promised that the top rate of income tax would be cut, and the highest rate has fallen by 16 per cent. What is more, real take-home pay—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This noise is very unseemly. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition asked a question and the House wants to hear the answer.

The Prime Minister: What is more, real take-home pay for a family on average earnings has risen by 6 per cent. under this Government. Under the Labour Government it remained static.

Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend taken time this week to examine the achievements of the Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council, of which I am a member, which for the second year running has announced a cut in rates? Does this not give the lie to the wets on both sides of the House, however distinguished they may be, who say that it cannot be done?

The Prime Minister: Birmingham, under Tory control, has an excellent record of living within its means thanks to excellent financial management, which brings benefit to the ratepayer.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: Why does not the Prime Minister face the simple fact that it is the working poor who are the sufferers from the benefit cuts that she proposes, just as it is they who are the sufferers from the current levels of income tax? She talks many times about incentives to work, but does she not realise that that is what she is denying them?

The Prime Minister: If one looks at the proportion— according to average earnings— that goes to an average family of four on social security benefit, I am advised that the income that it gets in that way is bigger in relation to average earnings than it was under the Labour Government. On that basis, the position of the working poor has improved.

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time this week to see the result of the survey undertaken for the Institute of Directors? [Interruption.] Did she note that 84 per cent. of those who responded said that their businesses were doing well, and that 61 per cent. said that they were far more optimistic than they were six months ago? Does that not show that the nation was right to trust the Conservative leadership rather than the failing leaderships offered by the Opposition parties?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We had one of the highest annual growth rates among European Community nations last year. Industrial output was up 3 per cent. on a year earlier, chemicals were up 8 per cent. on the same period last year, car production was up 18 per cent. on 1982, and private sector housing starts were 17 per cent. higher than in the same period. Generally, there is a greater air of optimism both here and in Europe about the future.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Prime Minister confirm or deny that on a recent visit to Oman she had meetings with her son Mark? If she did what was the nature of that visit? Was it commercial or social?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing that I can usefully add to what I said on this subject earlier the week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] I suggest, with respect, that we concentrate on seeing why we do not get more contracts and — [Interruption]—I am going to see that we do. [Interruption.]

Mr. McCrindle: On that matter, will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread appreciation on the Conservative Benches—and, I suspect, throughout the country—of the unfailing efforts that she has made to bring contracts home to this country? [Interruption.] Will she totally disregard the snide campaign being conducted from the Opposition Benches and by some organs of the national press?

The Prime Minister: I am concerned to get more contracts for this country, to help provide more jobs for this country. I sometimes think that Opposition Members are not concerned about improving the living conditions in this country and that they would rather have more unemployment.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend reflect briefly on the Leader of the Opposition's excursion to Athens? Did not the right hon. Gentleman display abroad, as he displays at home, his enthusiasm for the expropriation and disposal of assets that do not belong to him?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is constantly trying to spend more of other people's money or give away other people's property.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Prime Minister accept from me the appreciation of my constituents, who greatly admired her courage at Christmas when she visited the UDR, the RUC and Regular Army bases on the frontier at Aughnacloy? Does she not deplore attempts to blacken the reputation of 32,000 Ulstermen who have served with honour in the UDR? Will she acknowledge that only a minute proportion of those who have served during the past 15 years have strayed outside the law? Will she further agree with me that Cardinal O'Fiaich's recent astonishing attempt to justify Sinn Fein membership should not give rise to a blanket condemnation of all Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute to the excellent work that the UDR has done in Northern Ireland and I totally and utterly agree with the hon. Member: one never condemns one group of people compared with another, one condemns violence wherever it occurs and by whomsoever it is perpetrated.

Mr. Adley: While congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit to the Middle East, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give every support to King Hussein, who is trying to return the West Bank to the control of the indigenous population?

The Prime Minister: King Hussein has, as my hon. Friend knows, recently recalled the Parliament of Jordan which, of course, includes recalling those who represented the West Bank in that Parliament. I believe that that was an encouraging step. I earnestly hope that the time will come when further negotiations can take place on the fundamental Arab-Israeli problem in the middle east.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the recent exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time you will have heard a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) regarding the visit to Oman of the Prime Minister and her son. Would you draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that she failed to answer a very simple question —[Interruption]—that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot carry on with that now.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice and guidance? Is there any way at all, any parliamentary means whatsoever, by which we can get the Prime Minister to answer questions about her son's visit to Oman? I tabled questions and I received no answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an abuse. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many ways of raising any kind of matter in this place.

National Physical Laboratory (Radioactive Contamination)

Mr. Toby Jessel: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the radioactive contamination at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I fully understand that anything involving radioactivity is a matter of very real concern to the people directly involved and those living and working nearby and the local Member of Parliament. I was very glad that my hon. Friend was able to visit this morning the National Physical Laboratory. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that the dangers in this instance are quite insignificant.
In a check made in mid-December, before demolition of part of a building at the National Physical Laboratory, it was discovered that there were some very small amounts of radioactive material, largely confined to one room, in the building. This building was used 20 to 30 years ago for the analysis of uranium ore. As a precautionary measure, the building was closed. The Environmental and Medical Sciences Division of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell which carried out the check has since advised us, prior to its full report becoming available, that overall there is no cause for concern. It is anticipated that the building will soon be in use again.
The radiation involved travels only a very small distance in the air—I am advised that it is less than 2 cm—and presents no hazards to people in the vicinity. Indeed, the exterior of the building is completely free of this radiation and there is no danger whatsoever to those living nearby.

Mr. Jessel: My right hon. Friend has said that the radioactivity is of a quite insignificant amount. Is he aware that any radioactive contamination close to where people live or work causes alarm and that, although the staff of the National Physical Laboratory are highly responsible people, who care as much about health and safety as anyone else, this episode requires a rather more detailed explanation than that which has so far been given?
Will my right hon. Friend set up a most searching inquiry to double check whether, at any stage, there could have been any risk to people inside or outside the building? What form might such an inquiry take? Have any uranium particles been found anywhere at any stage and what level of radioactivity was found? What level of radiation, over a long period, is completely safe to people working at close quarters to it? How and why did the contamination occur? I accept that my right hon. Friend said that it had begun 20 or 30 years ago—long before he was in any way responsible for these matters. What steps have been taken to ensure that such events will never occur again?

Mr. Baker: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety. I also appreciate the fact that anxiety is evident among many people whenever radioactive materials are involved. I have received an interim report from Harwell. One paragraph says:
The areas of radioactive contamination found in Room 35 appear to be fixed and hence present no inhalation or ingestion problems, during normal use"—
that is to say that the contamination is in the surface of the floor—

and the radiation dose rates from these areas present no significant hazard to those who work there.
I assure my hon. Friend's constituents and others who work in the laboratory that I have checked this morning with the Government Chemist, who has 30 years' experience of working with radioactive materials, and he has confirmed that the health hazard is quite insignificant.
My hon. Friend asked why the problem was not discovered before. I am asking for records to be checked to discover what decontamination was carried out in the early 1960s when the room was last used for the analysis of uranium ore. I am also asking the Harwell Environmental and Medical Sciences Division to check all other buildings and all of the research establishments in my Department where uranium ore has been used.
My hon. Friend asked about the acceptable level of radiation. The scientifically acceptable level is 7.5 roentgens a year. I shall put that in a way which most people can understand. The advice that I have received from Harwell this morning is that the highest level of contamination in the area is a spot of about 2 sq in on which someone would have had to have stood for seven hours without moving for the radiation to reach the internationally agreed safe level of dose.
My hon. Friend asked whether there would be an inquiry. I am awaiting the final report from Harwell. At this stage I do not believe that a public inquiry would be helpful, but I shall make the Harwell report available to the House as a public document. If my hon. Friend would like to have a meeting of his constituents or of other residents near the National Physical Laboratory, I shall be only too happy to facilitate one.

Mr. Roger Stott: If the Daily Express possessed the information about the levels of radioactivity three weeks ago, why was the Health and Safety Inspectorate not called in immediately? When was the department first informed about the radiation leaks? As I understand it, there are standing instructions to report any leak of radiation to the Department and for the Minister to make a public statement about it.
Are people who work in the vicinity of the building being medically checked to ensure that they are in no danger? Can the Minister confirm that the geiger counter readings revealed that radiation levels were 100 times greater than normal background levels? That is the claim made in today's Daily Express. Can the Minister assure the House and the people who live in the area that stringent tests will continue to be carried out regularly—not just over a short period—to ensure that this problem does not arise again?

Mr. Baker: I most strongly refute the allegation that there was a cover-up. On 16 December all staff and all of the contractors who were working on the demolition were notified that the building would be closed as a precautionary measure until further notice. They were given the reasons and a notice was put up on the staff notice board and circulated to everyone. The Health and Safety Executive and the National Radiological Protection Board were also informed. Articles on the matter appeared in the local press in Twickenham on 6 and 12 January and questions were answered by the National Physical Laboratory spokesman.
As to health checks for employees, I emphasis once again that the health hazard is insignificant. None the less, I have asked that all staff working in the building be


offered medical examinations by the Civil Service medical adviser. I stress that I am fully aware of the anxiety and apprehension that everybody naturally feels when radiation is involved. I am happy to say that in this case very little danger is involved. It is virtually insignificant.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question refers only to a specific incident in Teddington.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In the light of the Minister's answer, will he acknowledge that the local authority concerned was not informed formally about the incident, nor about the evacuation? Will he undertake to ensure that in future all Government establishments keep in closer contact with the local authority, especially as it is responsible for civil defence and emergency planning in such instances?

Mr. Baker: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall pass his comments to the director of the National Physical Laboratory.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will a watching brief for cancer be kept on all former employees of the institution?

Mr. Baker: If former employees who worked in that area wish to have a free medical check, I shall make that provision available to them.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the most eminent commentators on such affairs have expressed the view that there is no such thing as a safe level of radiation? Will he also bear in mind that the level of anxiety in my and surrounding constituencies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was just what I had hoped to avoid.

Mr. Cook: —which probably reflects national opinion, is about 95 per cent? Therefore, we are discussing, not a party political issue, but a national community issue. Will the Minister bear in mind that the national community is fed up with the bland assurances that are given by the agencies responsible? Will he also bear in mind that that anxiety will not be appeased or subdued until the agencies responsible for monitoring radiation are themselves monitored—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

Mr. Baker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is not true to say that there can be no standard of acceptable dosage. There are internationally agreed standards and it is important that that should be the case to ensure that safety checks are carried out. In this case it was not possible to measure the radioactivity in the atmosphere because there was none. There was a surface contamination of a narrow and small area.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Minister said that it might not be helpful to have a public inquiry into the Teddington case. Will he tell the House to whom a public inquiry would not be helpful?

Mr. Baker: I am only too happy to make the final report available publicly as soon as I receive it. If, following that report, there is still anxiety, I shall see what can be done. It is an exceptionally narrow case, and I should have to be persuaded that a full public inquiry was justified.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will Leader of the House state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JANUARY—Motion on the Rate Support Grant (England) 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 151)
TUESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition day (6th Allotted Day): Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on the employment crisis on the lower Clyde and the future of the Scott Lithgow yard. Afterwards, a debate on closures and redundancies in British Rail Engineering Limited. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 25 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
THURSDAY 26 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the White Paper, Cmnd. No. 9043 "Developments in the European Communities January to June 1983."
Motion on the European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983.
FRIDAY 27 JANUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 30 JANUARY—second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House inform us of the date of this year's Budget statement?
The Opposition are concerned about the delay in the announcement on the future of the A320 Airbus, which is obviously critical to the future of the British aerospace industry. Will there be an early statement on that, if possible next week?
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government provide time for debates on the rate support grants for Wales and Scotland, since the matter has generated much anxiety in both countries?
Today the Government inflicted a further burden on householders by forcing up electricity prices by obliging the Electricity Council to make increases that it does not wish to make and which are generally recognised to be unnecessary. May we expect a statement early next week about the price increases? If there is a statement, will it be made by the Secretary of State for Energy, for whom the increases represent a significant defeat, or will it be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom the increases represent a tax?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday 13 March, and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House to know that date so early.
As soon as the Government are in a position to announce their policy decisions on the Airbus, they will come to the House, but I cannot promise that such a statement will be ready by next week. Clearly it would be in the interests of all for this matter to be resolved as soon as possible.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's point about the rate support grants for Scotland and Wales. The timing of the debates will be discussed through the usual channels.
I also note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a statement on electricity prices. He kindly offered us an option between two of the brightest stars of the Government, and we shall bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing): Does my right hon. Friend recall that last year the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee strongly supported the publication of the Government's public expenditure White Paper before the Budget statement so that it could be debated and reported upon before the Budget was introduced? He has given the date of the Budget. Will he assure the House that there will be a debate on the public expenditure White Paper before Budget day?

Mr. Biffen: I can give my right hon. Friend my sympathy for the point that he makes.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Has the Leader of the House received a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on yesterday's worrying report of the Air Travel Reserve Agency, which showed clearly that the fund is in difficulty, primarily because of the effects of the Laker collapse? It also showed that the claims of 4,000 people who were denied holidays as a result of the collapse in February 1982 have still not been cleared up. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking, long before the holiday season begins, that the Secretary of State for Transport will discuss those matters with the Civil Aviation Authority and the agency so that holidaymakers may know that they can enjoy safe holidays and that financial arrangements are secure?

Mr. Biffen: I have not received such a request, but the fund is of acute interest both inside and outside the House. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentlaman has said.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 404 about a threat to 40,000 jobs in London.
[That this House believes that the effects of a night and weekend ban on large lorries in the Greater London area will include a massive reduction in employment as depots and markets move outside the London Orbital Motorway M25 area, a dramatic increase in traffic congestion as delivery vehicles delay their entry into London until the rush-hour, a trebling of the number of lorries if smaller vehicles replace existing ones, that food will be less fresh and prices will rise, and London's manufacturing industrial base will be further eroded; and calls on the Greater London Council to consult retailers, distributors, manufacturers and unions, especially about the employment consequences which could add 10 per cent. to unemployment in London, and to publish the results of the consultation.]
Will my right hon. Friend make sure that if the GLC imposes a night and weekend ban on heavy lorries in London, which will lead to a flight from London of wholesale and warehouse jobs, Ministers at the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport will, in the interests of maintaining employment in London and keeping down the amount of traffic, announce in the House immediate action to overturn the ban?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport to that pertinent point. Doubtless they will contact my hon. Friend direct.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The whole House and indeed the country will rejoice at the Prime Minister's ambassadorial success in obtaining overseas contracts, but it is regrettable that her success with Cementation International Ltd. has been tainted by allegations that her son was involved. As the Prime Minister refuses to answer the question put to her, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate so that the whole country may know whether the right hon. Lady was successful as an ambassador in obtaining that contract, or whether she was assisted by her son?

Mr. Biffen: If Opposition Members feel that there is substance in that point, they will no doubt make use of all the parliamentary opportunities open to them to draw attention to it.

Sir Anthony Grant: A number of hon. Members who supported the Government on the Second Reading of the Rates Bill are nevertheless uneasy about the rate support grant. Will my right hon. Friend ensure—if necessary by suspending the rule for a short time—that there is sufficient time on Monday for all hon. Members to express their views and, if necessary, for the Secretary of State to explain any concessions that he might make?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the debate can run until 11.30 pm.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: IBM United Kingdom Ltd recently wrote to its customers in the United Kingdom, apparently at the express request of the United States Government, telling them that before they relocate their computers within the United Kingdom they require permission by licence from the United States Government. A spokesman of the United States Defence Department recently threatened a complete embargo on any country not following that procedure. As our Government, our industry and, in particular, the Ministry of Defence are 90 per cent. dependent upon American computers, is that not a direct threat to our sovereignty and, as such, should it not he discussed on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. This sensitive point would be suitable either for an Adjournment debate or for questions to the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Michael Latham: Would it be convenient for the Foreign Secretary to make the statement next week on his attendance at the disarmament conference this week in Stockholm? Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us in that statement what proposals the British Government are putting forward to try to achieve the signing of a treaty in 1984 rather than have more conferences and Soviet walkouts?

Mr. Biffen: The Stockholm talks are assuming considerable significance, and the House will wish to be informed of my right hon. and learned Friend's views. I shall convey to him the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Just before the general election, when the Boundary Commission reports came before the House, there was

general dissatisfaction with the rules and with the procedures applied in certain areas. It was implied by the Minister of State— I say no more than that—that in good time, before the next Boundary Commission, the Government would set up an appropriate inquiry. It is now 1984, and such inquiries take a long time. Is there any news yet?

Mr. Biffen: If there is, I am not, alas able to convey it. However, I shall look into the matter at once and report to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In view of the continuing reports of intruders on royal premises. will the Government stop blocking my Criminal Law Act 1977 (Amendment) Bill and so give the Queen the protection that we now give only to foreign diplomats?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that, and will be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Parry: An announcement on the designation of the free ports is expected very soon. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that it is not made by means of a written answer? Will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow a full debate on that important subject, which affects many parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Biffen: Of course, the report on free ports raises lively regional considerations. I shall certainly convey that point to those of my right hon. Friends concerned, and I know that it will be echoed elsewhere and in other parts of the House.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsea and Wood Green): Does my right hon. Friend remember giving me an undertaking last November that he would discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the possibility of an early debate on the important Oglesby report on delays in mobility and attendance allowances? What progress has he made in those discussions, and what is the result?

Mr. Biffen: I have taken up the matter and will ensure that both my hon. Friend and the House are informed of the position.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the allegations against the Prime Minister of nepotism will not go away and that a ministerial statement on the issue should be made in the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged that Mark Thatcher was allowed to sit in on the discussions that took place between the Prime Minister and civil servants, against the wishes of the civil servants, and that he was allowed access on that tour to places to which any other business man would have been denied access? How much money changed hands? Was Mark Thatcher on the gravy train? We should have a proper chance to challenge and question the Minister at the Dispatch Box; the matter should not be swept under the carpet.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman clearly attaches great importance to the matter and is joined in that view by many other Opposition Members. However, they know perfectly well that there is ample opportunity for the matter to be prosecuted during the time available to the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend invite the Secretary of State for Defence to make an early statement on his visit to the Falklands?

Mr. Biffen: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the interest in all parts of the House in recent events in Central America, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be appropriate to depart from our normal practice in debating foreign affairs so that we can do justice to one subject? Will he therefore agree to provide time to discuss Central America?

Mr. Biffen: I would be the first to concede that Central America is of growing significance to world affairs, if not specifically to British foreign policy. However, there is no time available in the near future for a special debate on that topic.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Has my right hon. Friend or my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary received any indication from the Opposition that they are now prepared to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill instead of opposing it?

Mr. Biffen: Such matters will be revealed in the debate on Wednesday.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Before the Conservative party resurrects the convention that a Chief Whip who has retired from office must resign from the House— as mentioned by one newspaper this morning—may we have a full debate in the House on how that change would affect the four right hon. Gentlemen concerned?

Mr. Biffen: If we run out of issues of substance to debate, we may have to move to issues of irrelevance, and that subject would be highly entertaining.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is there likely to be a statement on the future of Prestwick airport in relation to free port status and licences to fly out of Glasgow on transatlantic flights?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will have heard my comment in relation to free ports. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the more general issues concerning Prestwick airport.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to those hon. Members who are seeking to intervene that an important Opposition debate is to follow. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes.

Dr. David Clark: Has the Leader of the House seen the annual report "The State of the Region" on the northern region which drew the Government's attention to mass unemployment in that area? Its problems were exacerbated last week by the announcement by Plessey of a further 600 redundancies. May we have a debate on the state of the northern region?

Mr. Biffen: Many regions understandably feel that it is imperative that their problems are debated. I view this matter sympathetically, but I can offer no prospect of a debate next week.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Leader of the House aware of the serious anxiety expressed by senior British diplomats about the conduct of the Prime Minister and her son in Oman? In view of that worry, will he reconsider the replies that he has given this afternoon?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of that serious concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will seek an early opportunity to validate his comments. I shall in no sense offer Government time for the debate sought by the Opposition. If they are motivated by altruistic considerations, they will find a way of having this matter debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: May we have an assurance that we shall have an early debate on the procedures of the House, especially to discuss refusal of Ministers to list the engagements that they cancelled on 18 November 1983 when they were "whipped" to be in the House to defeat the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman knows that plans are afoot to set up a Procedure Committee. Perhaps when that matter comes before the House he will have a chance to make the points that now concern him.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend ask his counterparts how much longer it will be before a statement is made on the proposals to dump nuclear waste in Cleveland, which is causing the whole region to become sterile in industrial and commercial terms?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, and I shall ensure that the relevant Ministers are informed of his point.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday this week there was a major lobby in Westminster Hall about London Transport at which many seriously disabled people sought to be present? Because they were confined to wheelchairs, it was impossible for them to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware that shortly we shall be discussing many issues of concern to seriously disabled people, will he do his utmost to ensure that they have access to not only the Committee Room in Westminster Hall but to all the Committee Rooms when Standing Committees meet? These people have as much right as able-bodied people to listen to the debates.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman knows that that point is already before the Services Committee. I shall ensure that it is informed of his comments.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen the article in The Observer on Sunday which addressed many discerning questions to the Prime Minister about the business in Oman? Does he realise that when on Monday a request to raise that matter was made on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) Mr. Speaker rightly said that there would be other opportunities to raise it. Opposition Members at Question Time on Tuesday and Thursday addressed questions to the Prime Minister, and they are perplexed that she is not prepared to answer them.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that next week a statement—we do not want a debate—is made? Does he recall the anxiety expressed some time ago when No. 10 Downing street paper was used by Denis Thatcher when he wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales about a property deal? Are we to understand that Downing street has been privatised?

Mr. Biffen: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because he is suffering from what afflicts all


of us from time to time—the problem of managing to get questions out but not liking the answers. I cannot hold out for him a better future in this respect next week than in the past.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House understand that one of the problems is that when written questions were addressed to the Prime Minister by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) she replied as she did today al the Dispatch Box, "I have nothing further to add"?
Normally, the Prime Minister is not backward in coming forward. She is supposed to be a politician of conviction and one who fights her corner. However, she has been extremely reticent on this occasion. It is necessary that she— not another Minister—makes a statement to the House on this issue so that hon. Members may question her on the exact nature of the deals in Oman, the role played by her son, whether she knew of his visit at that time, and so on. We cannot be satisfied by her saying that she has nothing to add. The Leader of the House must understand that we are using all the political opportunities that he has described, but the Prime Minister keeps putting up a stone wall.

Mr. Biffen: I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was quite such an amateur in these matters. If he says that he is using all the political opportunities available to him and is not getting very far, that is a reflection more upon his skills than upon the Prime Minister. If the Opposition wish to pursue this case, they have plenty of opportunities, but I shall not offer them Government time in which to do so.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House raise with the Director of Public Prosecutions the so—called revelations in the Daily Express in the past few days about fraud in the Property Services Agency? Does he agree that the newspaper's allegations relate to incidents that have already been the subject of prosecution in the courts, that the newspaper has not produced any new information and that if the Daily Express has anything in its files which it feels should be answered it should put it before the police and not play Fleet street in a circulation war?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman seeks to make a fair and constructive point, which I note, but I have no responsibility to raise matters with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. David Winnick: Will we have a statement next week on whether the Government are satisfied with the way in which they have used their various facilities in the information service to get the Tory press to rubbish the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? If there is no truth in the allegation about former Government Whips being made to retire from the House of Commons, are the Government working on the basis that they would like to have the same system that operates in eastern Europe where former leaders of the party who stray from the official line become non-persons and are in utter disgrace?

Mr. Biffen: Neither by temperament or by experience does the Conservative party have much knowledge of eastern Europe.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret not only raising this point of order but the stonewalling tactics employed by the Leader of the House, who is usually very helpful to the House on business questions. Many hon. Members have raised the matter of the involvement of the Prime Minister's son in a contract. There are precedents in the memory of hon. Members when the later Reginald Maudling, the late John Cordle and Albert Roberts were involved in contracts abroad. The Government of the day and the then Leader of the House provided facilities for the House to debate the involvement of the three hon. Members in those contracts.
This issue will not go away. If the House of Commons is not to be brought into disrepute, Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House have a responsibility to ensure that facilities are made available to clear up any doubts about what happened abroad when the Prime Minister made her visit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member said that the Government of the day had made arrangements for a debate. I have no responsibility for the organisation of debates. The House has heard what the Leader of the House has said about this matter.

Opposition Day

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered.

Occupational Pensioners (Housing Benefit)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Government amendment.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House notes that 1,333,000 occupational pensioners and others with additional income will be affected by the changes in housing benefit announced as a result of Mr. Chancellor's Autumn Statement, that the average weekly loss involved will be 80 pence per week, and that 270,000 occupational pensioners will lose housing benefit altogether; and urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this matter at once.
There can be few, if any, precedents for an administrative measure so meanly devised, so badly prepared and so disastrously carried out as the Government's so-called housing benefit scheme, which for thousands of people would be more aptly described as a housing nightmare scheme. It hits hardest at pensioners and families on below-average earnings. It threatens family unity with regard to low-paid teenagers. It deepens poverty, which is already at a crisis level unknown in this country for 50 years. It sentences two thirds of a million of the poorest households to a poverty trap marginal tax rate of 80 per cent. and has generated an administrative shambles of enormous proportions. It has provoked fear, anxiety and hardship for thousands of people who, for the first time in their lives, face eviction or owe hundreds of pounds.
Fundamentally, this debate is about poverty. Poverty as defined by receipt of supplementary benefit has increased by no less than 70 per cent. under the Tories since 1979. If anyone wants an indictment of Tory Britain, that is it. According to the Government's own figures for supplementary benefit, 7·5 million people are now living in poverty, plus a further 1 million not claiming supplementary benefit but living below the supplementary benefit line. According to the Government themselves, therefore, almost one in six of the population in Thatcherite Britain is living in poverty and it is those people who are overwhelmingly the victims of the latest unjust, arbitrary and spiteful cuts.
The effect on pensioners will be drastic. More than 1,300,000 will be deprived of an average of 80p per week. If any hon. Member thinks that that is not a large sum, I remind the House that in the course of a year it represents about two weeks expenditure on food for the average pensioner household. Nearly 250,000 pensioners will lose more than £1·50 per week. The hardest hit will be those on occupational pensions for which they have saved all their working lives. Conservative Members will no doubt have seen the example cited by SHAC showing that a single pensioner with occupational and retirement pension amounting to £4,000 per year, paying rent of £18 and rates of £5 per week, will lose no less than £4·50 per week as a result of the Government's proposals. By any standard,

that is a traumatic cut for a person on limited means for which he has saved all his life, and it is by no means an exceptional case.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: There are people in my constituency and throughout the country whose earnings after tax are very little higher than that. The figure quoted from the SHAC leaflet is not a high income, but it is not a devastatingly low one for a pensioner.

Mr. Meacher: I hesitate to ask the hon. Gentleman what his income is, taking into account his private resources, but by comparison with him and most other people in the country the figure that I gave represents an abnormally low standard of living. According to the Government's own figures, 20,000 pensioners in those circumstances will lose between £4 and £5 a week. That is an outrage.
It is perhaps for that reason that Members of all parties in the House have supported the early-day motion embodied in today's motion. In this context I pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and I respect his integrity in putting down the early-day motion in the first place. The Government may be tempted, out of embarrassment, to transfer the major portion of the cuts from pensioners to low-income families, but that would be utterly unacceptable and unjust, because the non-pensioner victims of the Government's measures are already extremely hard hit.
In an analysis published a few days ago the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that, taking account of rates as well as rents, low-income families will lose an average of £2 per week—twice as much as the average loss for pensioners. Many will lose far more. The Child Poverty Action Group gives a far from extreme example—there are many similar cases—of a family with two children, one still at school and the other a 17-year-old living at home, in which the father has the low gross income of £135 per week and pays rates of £8 and rent of £25 per week. That is in no way an exceptional case. The Government's measures will deprive that family of £8 per week. That is scandalous by any standards.
I hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention, as my argument refutes the claim constantly made by the Government that the cuts will be concentrated on the better-off families and that the poorest will be protected because the taper changes will affect only those with incomes above the needs allowance. Ministers with incomes of £600 per week perhaps need to be reminded that the needs allowance for a single person is only £43 per week and that most people on housing benefit whose incomes exceed that sum are by no means well off.
The leaked Social Security Advisory Committee report is most enlightening on this. I hope that the House and the public will be able to study the report well before the revised regulations are published. It is utterly unacceptable to publish the report at the same time as the regulations. The leaked report states that the cuts will mean
substantial losses in largely indiscriminate fashion to families who have very' low incomes indeed".
Those are the words, not of the Opposition, but of the Government's own advisory committee.
The case is further strengthened by the fact that the losses are concentrated on the very people who lost most seriously as a result of the introduction of housing benefit


in April last year, so let us have no more weasel words from the Government about protecting the poorest, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman would do himself some credit if he would step back from the Opposition's usual tactic of shedding crocodile tears and using statistics selectively and come clean on this. Does he realise that housing benefit costs the community about £4,000 million per year, which means more than £5 per week for the average household of four? While he is weeping all over the Floor of the House about how the money should be spent, will he tell us where it is to come from?

Ms. Clare Short: Mortgage relief.

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will contain himself, I will tell him exactly where the money could come from if we had a Government who cared about the poor.
Under this Government, mortgage interest tax relief this year of approximately £2·5 billion will, by and large, go to the better-off half of the country, while housing aid to the poorer half of the country is now approximately one quarter or one fifth of that level.

Mr. Marlow: It is better than it was before.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take account of the extreme unfairness in the distribution of housing aid as between rich and poor— a situation which his Government have considerably worsened.

Mr. D. M. Campbell-Savours.: Perhaps my hon. Friend will point also to the £3 billion which has been handed back in the form of capital gains tax, capital transfer tax and other tax concessions to the higher paid over the last four years. Could not that money have been better spent on poorer people?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. In Budget after Budget there have been massive handouts to the rich on the tax side, while on the social security side equal sums of money have been taken from the poor. That has been the story of this Government year after year, and this measure is only the culmination of that process.
The worst thing about the proposed cuts is the way in which they enormously intensify the poverty trap. The Government have expressed some concern about this issue, yet they have, nevertheless, produced this measure. For every pound that is earned above the needs allowance, 79p will be lost to tax, national insurance contributions and withdrawal of housing benefit. The Government are bringing about a fairy tale Alice-in-Wonderland situation. The Low Pay Unit has calculated that a family — a perfectly normal, unexceptionable case — claiming family income supplement and housing benefit, and paying tax and national insurance contributions, will lose £1·09p for every extra pound that it earns. That is surely the ultimate absurdity of these proposals.
The measure also exposes—and I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North—what is so deeply offensive to so many of us on this side, the class bias in this measure. Four years ago the Government brought down the top rate of tax for the richest people in Britain to 60 per cent. Now they are raising the rate for some of the poorest people in the country to 80 or even over 100 per cent. How can that be

right? How can the Government, in Budget after Budget, justify giving huge tax handouts to the rich and then, with a measure such as this, penalising those who, by any standards, can scarcely scrape a living to survive? What is the morality of this Government? I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an answer to that fundamental question.
I shall take the point further. If the Government had been genuinely concerned to protect those on lower incomes—and here I shall answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis)—they could have done so while still saving a similar sum. A sum of £140 million could have been saved by restricting mortgage interest relief to the standard rate of tax, and another £60 million could have been saved, if only the Prime Minister cared about the poor as much as she cares about the well-off, by leaving the ceiling on mortgage relief unchanged. Of course, after hearing the Prime Minister at Question Time today we know that the right hon. Lady thinks that taxes are too high.
On that subject I want to quote from The Daily Telegraph — not, I think, a Socialist journal —of 25 November last year. It said that housing cuts
have fallen disproportionately heavily on people with relatively low incomes who are not owner occupiers.
The key sentence was:
The contrast with the Government's decision earlier this year to raise the ceiling on mortgage tax relief to £30,000 is not a pretty one.
I hope that Conservative right hon. and hon. Members will take into account that judgment by a deeply Conservative newspaper when they consider how they will vote.
There is yet another aspect of the proposals in the light of which a political party which prides itself on being concerned for the family, as the Tory party claims, should be shamed into withdrawing the proposals. I am referring to the damaging impact on family relationships which can be predicted following the huge rise—no less than 47 per cent. —in the contribution that is expected to be made to the household by wage-earning youngsters living at home.
I quote again from the Government's advisory committee's report, which said:
It is right that non-dependants living in a beneficiary's household should be expected to make a contribution towards housing costs.
I entirely agree with that.
But these increases have gone beyond what is fair and realistic.
It continued,
There is a real danger that non-dependants will not pay. In these circumstances, the householder either has to bear the increased reduction himself or force the non-dependant to leave.
I ask again: what is the morality of this Government, who cosset the rich at the expense of breaking up the families of the poor?

Mr. John Maples: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it reasonable that a working 17-yearold should be assumed to contribute £3 towards the rent, and that a working 20-year-old should be assumed to contribute approximately £8, which is all that this amounts to?

Mr. Meacher: The Social Security Advisory Committee considered that an increase in contribution of nearly 50 per cent., which is far higher than—

Mr. Maples: The figure is £3.

Mr. Meacher: Yes, £3. The committee considered that an increase of nearly 50 per cent., which is far higher than the increase in wages of those same young persons in the recent past, was unfair and unrealistic, and I think that that is a judgment which the hon. Gentleman ought to take into account.
Finally—and I am conscious that many other hon. Members want to speak in the debate — perhaps most serious of all is the management of the scheme, or perhaps I should say the almost total mismanagement of the scheme, which must surely rank among the biggest administrative shambles ever imposed on this country.
A review of the scheme has just been published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, based on 10,000 inquiries made to bureaux all over the country over the last year. The information thus collected offers one of the most comprehensive and damning indictments ever published of a Government measure and I hope that as many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen as possible will look at the report before they vote, because it repays careful study.
In a letter to the Secretary of State, of which I have acopy, the association said:
The overall picture is one of operational defects the scale and effects of which can only be described as devastating. Bureaux have reported delays between a reduction in supplementary benefit entitlement and the eventual receipt of housing benefit of up to nine months. The report refers to numerous cases where tenants awaiting the payment of housing benefit have been issued with notices to quit and some instances where the landlord has gone so far as to send a summons. Many tenants, particularly, of course, elderly ones, are understandably unwilling to fall into arrears due to the stigma of being in debt, often for the first time, and also for the fear of eviction.
The report is packed with evidence of the excessive complexity of the calculations. It points to a complete lack of interdepartmental liaison, with wrong information being given and over-eager reclamation of benefit by local authorities. Nor—and I say this to the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) because she raised the matter in the last debate—is this shambles being overcome. The report said:
Miscalculations were legion, and this is a problem which shows no signs of abating as the pressure in many local authorities continues.
There is nothing I can say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that will more vividly illustrate the fear and the hardship that is being caused, the crassness and nonsense of what is being done, than to conclude by quoting three of the multitude of examples that are cited in the report, and with the permission of the House I shall do that.
On the first example given by the bureaux it said:
We had calculated that a client, a widow with two children, should only be paying rent of around £7, rather than the £19 asked of her by the council. We then contacted the local authority, who stated that the amount suggested to our client was merely a guess. We asked that they recalculate the amount and were informed that they were unable to calculate housing benefit manually and that if we considered the calculation made by the Bureau to be correct, she should pay that, rather than the sum originally advised.
In the second example the bureau stated:
Private tenants are still not receiving housing benefit in this area"—
that was in the middle of 1983—
and many clients are getting distressed. One client aged 78 was unable to afford his diabetic diet as he insisted on paying his rent in full.
The third example is that of a couple, retirement pensioners—the sort of people who are the subject of

our motion — entitled to certificated housing benefit. They were on supplementary benefit and therefore not liable to pay any rent. The bureau said:
They received a rent arrears statement for £93, which was incorrect. They were not informed that they were now on housing benefit, so they paid £213 out of their reduced income.
I ask hon. Members to remember that we are talking about people on supplementary benefit, old-age pensioners.
In the meantime they ran up a debt to the London Electricity Board of £90. The CAB wrote to the council in June to inform them of the problem and to ask for a rent refund. In August the clients"—
the elderly couple—
received a statement from the council saying that they were now £248 in arrears. The CAB rang the Housing Benefits Section, who confirmed that the clients were on certificated housing benefit.
That meant that they were not liable to pay any rent.
At the end of September"—
after this had been going on for several months—
the clients received a notice seeking possession of their flat.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Name the council.

Mr. Meacher: On 31 December—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not know the answer.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: We are talking, not about a council, but about this Tory Government.

Mr. Meacher: I am conscious of the time and am anxious to conclude my remarks.

Mr. Bowden: Name the council.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) will, I hope, have an opportunity to make his own speech.
Conservative Members must accept that this problem is squarely one for them. Any Government who cut down the rate support grant by the extent to which this Government have done and who restrict local authority manpower in the way that they have cannot then complain that the manpower is not available properly to carry out these activities.

Mr. Bowden: In the context of what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is vital that he names the council concerned, because clearly there is gross inefficiency within that council's department dealing wth these matters. We must know the name of the council. Will he please tell us?

Mr. Meacher: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's integrity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not know the name of the council. Dozens of examples are given in the report from which I have quoted and in no case is the council named. I am sure that inquiries of the bureaux would reveal the name of the council, should hon. Members wish to pursue the matter. In any event, I repeat that in no way can Conservative Members offload responsibility for this on to the local authorities. It is not the fault of the authorities because they do not have the qualified manpower, the money or the rate support grant to do the job properly.
On 31 December The Economist, not exactly a Labour journal, urged the Government
to drop this ham-fisted saving.
On 6 January The Times, also not exactly a Labour newspaper, concluded
that the Government could do well to think again.


The Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government's own advisory body, stated:
We join all those who have made representations to us in deploring these cuts, which we believe will have an unduly harsh effect on many individuals.
In the light of those representations, which go right across the political spectrum, I strongly urge the Government to display judgment and magnanimity in this matter, to withdraw these ill-advised, unjust and damaging proposals and to think again.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
notes that even after the changes in housing benefits announced as a result of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, expenditure on social security benefits, including housing benefits, will continue to rise in real terms in 1984–85; considers that the greatest help Her Majesty's Government can give occupational pensioners and all social security beneficiaries is to conquer inflation; and congratulates the Government on the substantial progress made in bringing inflation down to the lowest levels for 15 years.
I wish at the outset to make clear the position on the proposed reductions in housing benefit. As the House will know, the proposals made after the Chancellor's autumn statement were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred. That committee has reported to me in the last two weeks and I am currently considering its proposals. Obviously I wish to study carefully what the committee has said, and I shall be publishing the report, together with the Government's response on the matter, in the next few weeks.
I am anxious to make it clear at the outset also that the Government are not inflexible on the proposals. As well as considering the views of the advisory committee, we shall take into account what is being said in this debate about the proposed changes. I thought it right to make that position clear at the beginning of the debate. I shall come shortly to the areas of consideration, but first there are two initial points I should make because they go to the heart of the debate.
First, we must recognise the background against which we are debating housing benefit, and it is not the background as stated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. It is that social security spending next year is expected to run at about £37 billion, which is 29 per cent. of the planned total of public expenditure. We expect it to be almost £1 billion higher than assumed in last year's public expenditure White Paper, and that is even after allowing for the savings that we want to achieve in the social security budget.
The second point I wish to emphasise is that the Government have already announced that provision has been taken within our spending plans for all weekly benefits to be uprated next November in line with prices, not only the pledged benefits but the unpledged ones also, such as supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit. By any standards the Government are spending a vast amount of money on social security provision—

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman means on the dole queues.

Mr. Fowler: —and I entirely defend our doing that, but it is also important to understand where that money is

going. Although obviously the increase in unemployment in recent years accounts for some of that increase, about half of the social security budget goes to the elderly.
In 1979 we pledged that the value of pensions would be raised in line with inflation. Between November 1978 and November 1983 the basic retirement pension was increased by 74·6 per cent., while the retail price index rose by 68·8 per cetn. At the same time we have taken a whole range of other steps to help the elderly, such as the increase in capital limits for supplementary pensioners and help with heating costs. This support has been given at a time when the numbers of people receiving the pension in this country have risen by 600,000, from 8·5 million in 1978–79 to over 9 million today. Thus, no one should be in any doubt about the commitment of this Government to the interests of the pensioner and to the interests of the elderly. It is a commitment that is underlined by the inquiry into the provision for retirement that is getting under way, but above all it is underlined by the other economic policies that the Government are carrying out, which I shall come to.

Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government will review the position. There is nothing about "review" or "consider" in the amendment to which he is speaking. If he is genuine about considering the position, why has he refused to accept the motion that is in identical terms to that tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden)? Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman wants his hon. Friends to vote for his amendment, he will have to offer proof of a more genuine commitment.

Mr. Fowler: I shall deal with the consideration that the Government are prepared to give to this matter. I thought that it was right at the outset to make it clear to the House that the proposals that we have put forward are not inflexible.
The aim of the Government has been to achieve economic stability, and the control of public spending is clearly vital to that. It is also vital, especially for pensioners, that inflation is curbed. The fact is that inflation is now down to levels that we have not experienced since the 1960s. That fact is welcomed by millions of pensioners, and it points to a fundamental difference between the two parties. The position of the occupational pensioners is new ground for the Opposition Front Bench. I do not remember it having raised their position previously, and for good reason. In their motion the Opposition criticise the average loss of 80p for pensioners from the proposed changes in housing benefit. But it is revealing to compare that with the scale of losses that their economic policies had on occupational pensions and savings during their previous period of Government. That illustrates precisely what happens when the alternative economic policies advocated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West are put into effect. During the previous Labour Government, prices rose by more than 110 per cent.

Mr. Winnick: How is it working?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion, he will realise that we are talking about the occupational pensioner. That meant that an occupational pensioner receiving a fixed £10 a week pension in February 1974 found that his £10 was worth just £4·71 in May 1979—


a loss not of 80p but of £5·29 a week or 53 per cent. in just over five years. Even taking account of the fact that the real value of the state retirement pension rose by 20 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, that loss still stood at £3·80 a week. That was the cruel effect of inflationary policies on the income of pensioners. But that is not the full story. The effects on capital were devastating. A pensioner with savings of £5,000 in February 1974 found those savings to be worth £2,355 by May 1979.

Mr. Frank Dobson: How many such pensioners were there?

Mr. Fowler: Since the hon. Gentleman's party was in Government, many fewer regrettably. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West complains, let him complain of the social evils of inflation and declare himself committed to an anti-inflationary policy. The fact is that any party that is concerned about social policy, that is concerned about living standards and that wants to see industry able to sustain our social programmes, such as housing benefit, must be concerned about economic policy. The Government have increased the aid going through the social security system at a time of recession but, at the same time, we have taken the action necessary to combat inflation and, therefore, to protect the interests not only of pensioners but of all beneficiaries.

Ms. Clare Short: Much stress has been laid upon the way in which occupational pensioners lost from inflation. We all regret that. We thought progress was being made when granny bonds were invented so that such people could be protected from inflation. Is the Secretary of State trying to argue that as that group lost out in the past because of inflation it justifies him deliberately cutting its income now?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady has missed the point. I am glad that she understands the importance of the effect of inflation upon our living standards, especially upon those of the elderly. As that fact is crucial—and it is recognised by the hon. Lady, if not by her Front Bench — it is essential to implement a policy with anti-inflationary goals. There is no point in adopting a policy that will have the effect of destroying anti-inflationary policies.
When the hon. Member for Oldham, West refers to the effects of the poverty trap, there is no point in seeking to argue that we should increase public spending and, at the same time, reduce taxation. If tax reductions are to be made—I agree with those who argue that the burden of income tax still falls on incomes that are far too low down the scale, and there is no question about that—we must take control of public spending. It cannot be argued that the social security budget, which makes up 29 per cent. of public spending, should be exempt from any consideration of change, particularly when what we are considering is not a cut in overall spending but a reduction in the rate of increase.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend is expressing the overall position accurately. No Conservative Member will doubt that the Government have done well for pensioners and in dealing with inflation. However, individual cases have the most effect. Is my right hon. Friend aware that people on occupational pensions sometimes, although they do not reveal the fact,

are among those who suffer worst in the community? Is he also aware that the proposed changes, according to those who know about the position in my constituency, will most probably hurt those people? Surely those are the people whom we should protect.

Mr. Fowler: I have the strongest sympathy for what my hon. Friend has said. He is also referring to the cumulative effect of several of the changes upon the income of the occupational pensioner. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend about that.
It was against this background that we considered the position of housing benefit. On the principle of housing benefit — I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was considerably less than fair about this— the reasons for the change were straightforward and widely supported.

Mr. Dobson: Who by?

Mr. Fowler: There is no point in looking longingly back on the system that was replaced as if it was an ideal world from which we moved. That is absurd.

Mr. Frank Field: Name one supporter.

Mr. Fowler: Professor David Donnison is certainly one who argued that case. There is no point in looking back on the system that has been replaced as if it was in some way a forgotten world. The fact is that we had two systems—the local authority system and the supplementary benefit system. That meant a range of problems for all kinds of people. There was, for example, the "better-off' problem. In 1979, not under our system but the old system, to which now, apparently, the Opposition Front Bench is so attached, it was estimated that 300,000 people on the local authority scheme would have been better-off had they transferred, but they did not have the necessary information.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West knows that the take-up was low, particularly among private tenants. By bringing the administration of the two schemes together and unifying it, it is unquestionable that the take-up of the benefit has increased substantially. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security replies he will report to the House on the discussions that he has had with local authorities. However, the reports that are coming back now, as opposed to those of six or nine months ago on which the letter of the advice bureaux was mainly based, show that the scheme has settled down in the majority of instances and is beginning to achieve its objectives.
It is important that the House understands that the real cost of standard benefit—benefit paid to those not in receipt of supplementary benefit—has increased from less than £132 million in 1972–73 to over £1,330 million this year, a 140 per cent. real increase. If the benefit paid to supplementary benefit claimants is included, the total cost next year will amount to about £3·75 billion, which will be an increase over this year's £3·5 billion. Nearly 6·9 million households — one in three — receive housing benefit. Even after the proposed changes, 6·3 million will continue to receive that benefit.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
The benefit goes to one in three households and it extends to higher up the income scale than any other means-tested benefit. For example, a two-child family with one earner paying average rent and rates will still


qualify for housing benefit on an income of £6,700 a year. If the same couple paid rent of £28 a week and rates of £9·30 a week, they would continue to qualify with earnings of £8,500 a year.
Many households are paying tax with one hand and receiving social benefits with the other. In 1982—

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
In 1982, 60 per cent. of those receiving standard housing benefit were paying tax, and 300,000 families among those receiving housing benefit were paying income tax averaging £7·40 a week while receiving housing benefit averaging £5·10 a week. A further 600,000 people were paying higher taxes than that while still receiving housing benefit. Our aim must be—

Mr. Conlan: rose—

Mr. Fowler: —to move away from this financial merry-go-round towards a system that will allow people to keep more of their own money and enable the state to concentrate its help on those who really need it.

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I have made it clear that I shall not give way again. I have given way on several occasions. I want to make as short a speech as possible to enable the maximum number of hon. Members to participate in the debate.
The Government's long-term strategy will continue to be the reduction of the burden of taxation on incomes. We wish to reinforce the importance to the low paid of increases of tax thresholds. In the most recent Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, personal allowances were increased again, and this year they are 6 per cent. higher in real terms than when the Government came to power. It is essential that that progress is maintained. If we are to succeed in achieving that aim, we must make the best use of available resources and concentrate them where they are needed most.
It has been our aim to concentrate housing benefit resources on those who most need help, and that is what our proposals are designed to do. As they stand, they represent a reduction of about 4 per cent. in the help with housing costs, expenditure on which is still rising. I shall be dealing with the details of the proposed changes when we come to debate the regulations.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to non-dependant deductions. There is widespread agreement that dependants living in a beneficiary's household should make a contribution towards their housing costs. I think that that was accepted by the hon. Gentleman. We are proposing that non-dependants—many of whom will be in well-paid jobs— should be expected to make a slightly higher contribution to their housing costs. Average adult earnings are now £170 a week and non-dependants will now be expected to contribute an extra £1·65 towards the cost of rent and rates. On average, male 18 to 20-year-olds earn £95 and females earn £78·20. Similar average earnings for 16 to 17-year-olds are £61 and £55·70.

Mr. Frank Field: This does not come within the motion.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to these matters and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) should listen to the case that is advanced from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Dobson: The Minister does not want to lose his place.

Mr. Fowler: The taper changes and minimum payments proposals will affect only those with incomes above the needs allowance, who will lose benefit at a higher rate for each £1 of additional income.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the Minister to refer back to his brief and to re-read the part that deals with—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Fowler: That shows the superficiality of the Opposition's interest in these matters. Current minimum payments are to be retained for all those on supplementary benefit. We propose to increase them to £1 for rent and 50p for rates for those not in receipt of supplementary benefit. It does not make administrative sense for local authorities to pay out very small amounts of benefit.
We propose to introduce changes to the high-rent scheme. Some authorities can provide extra help to claimants who are not on supplementary benefit if local average rents are above the national threshold. The threshold was set at about 150 per cent. of average rents in 1972, but over the years has declined to the present level. We are seeking to make the threshold more realistic.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about the effect of these changes and it is important that the House understands it. The great majority of claimants—over 4 million of them—will be unaffected by the taper and minima payment changes. Of the 2·2 million claimants who are so affected by the taper and by the minima payment changes, about half will lose less than 50p. The Government share the concern of the House to give more pensioners adequate financial support and protection. About two thirds of pensioners will be unaffected by taper and minima payment changes. No pensioner non-dependants will be affected by the changes and the 1 million plus pensioners who gained an average of £1 a week on the introduction of housing benefit will be almost unaffected by the changes. All pensioners will have the advantage of the special addition to the needs allowance, which was introduced by the Government last year. It should be emphasised again that for families with children—

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not doing so.
For families with children, there will be a £1 increase in the addition to the needs allowance for each child from next April. That will help about 500,000 poor families.
I accept the argument that the proposed changes— this is the point that has been fairly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) — might have a cumulative affect upon some households. The effect has been overstated because it has often been ignored that the main component in the cumulative effect is the increase in the non-dependant deductions. I do not believe that there is any good reason why those increases should make householders worse off. The overall direction of the changes is right.

Mr. Conlan: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I am not giving way.
The changes rein back the growth in housing costs while continuing to concentrate help on those most in need. I shall examine carefully the arguments put to me about the cumulative effects, particularly the immediate effects upon particular households. Before laying the regulations I shall want to be sure that we have made full allowance for this aspect. If it seems that the proposed changes might affect some households too harshly, especially in the shorter term, I shall be ready to consider modifying them. I hope that that is absolutely clear.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. When he says that he is prepared to modify the effect of some of the cuts on certain persons, does he mean that he will reduce the overall amount of the cutbacks to ensure that the scheme will not cost more than £230 million or that he will redistribute it on to other shoulders? The latter is wholly unacceptable.

Mr. Fowler: In regard to the overall savings in the social security budget, those savings will have to be made. We shall consider the points made in the debate and by the Social Security Advisory Committee about the impact upon housing benefit. The decisions that have been announced have not been set in concrete; there is scope for change in the proposals as they affect individuals. I should like to make that clear.
In making changes in housing benefit, as in social security policy as a whole, the Government have a duty to balance their responsibilities to the taxpayer and to those in genuine need of support. When we lay the orders before the House I hope it will conclude that we have struck the balance fairly. In the past Labour Governments have lurched from promises and excessive spending to high inflation and emergency cutbacks. This Government have proved their support for pensioners by raising pensions ahead of prices. Above all, we have reduced inflation and we are holding it down to the benefit of all on low incomes. It is in that context that our proposals to control the expansion in housing benefit should be judged, and it is in that context that the House should reject the motion moved by the Opposition.

Mr. Brynmor John: I hope to follow the Secretary of State as little as possible, mainly because he studiously avoided talking about the housing benefit scheme until he reached the last part of his remarks. He rightly said that the social security programme cannot hope to be exempt from change. We agree. But the housing benefit scheme was a change in the social security programme brought about not two years ago. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the idea that it has been stultified for years.
He has said that people were in favour of a unified system and once again he quoted Donnison. He is seriously misleading the House because Professor Donnison has made it clear time and again that he did not favour a unified benefit unless it had an injection of further money. What we see in the scheme is a no cost shambles which Professor Donnison disapproves of and which we all disapprove of. No one disapproves of the concept. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman has besmirched the concept by the pinch-penny way in which he has introduced it.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about capital. Let me bring him back to the point. We are talking not about people who have the opportunity of great capital accretions but about those who are eligible for housing benefit. They are amongst the least well off in the country. The Minister has said that some pensioners will not lose anything but he cannot point to anyone who will gain from the proposed change in the regulations. Either they will stay where they are or, in over 3 million households, they will lose money. It is because of the losses under the scheme that the debate is so important.
The motion refers to 1·3 million pensioner households which will lose an average of 80p per week. I apologise for repeating what is in the motion, but it is necessary to do so because the Secretary of State certainly did not refer either to the motion or to the scheme. He talked about a scheme which will take away from those who have a little income in addition to their basic pension 80p per week in housing benefit.
I understand that the Minister is a Lancastrian; his accent sometimes betrays that. I thought that thrift was something of which Lancastrians approved. If the Government clobber occupational pensioners in this way, they will create a pensions trap. If a person pays into a firm's pension scheme to earn a little more pension, he will be hit because he will be ineligible for housing benefit. So much for the party that approves of thrift and saving.

Mr. Conlan: It is not merely the recipients of occupational pensions who will be worse off as a result of the changes. Durham miners have traditionally arranged for their retired colleagues to receive a coal allowance because of the work that they did in the industry. Because of smoke control schemes brought in by successive Governments which prevent them burning coal, these pensioners get a payment in lieu of a coal allowance. That payment, which on average in the Durham area is about £3 a week, is deemed as income and affects the allowances under the housing benefit scheme.

Mr. John: I have had experience of what my hon. Friend has said.
We are talking about millions of households which will lose money. Ministers who were preaching the virtues of this scheme two years ago did not know who would win and who would lose. They did not reveal any figures. Either they knew and suppressed the information—I do not think that was so—or they were totally ignorant of the effects of the scheme when they introduced it. They not only sold a pig in a poke to the House but they bred that pig. They hatched a scheme whose effects they knew nothing about. To judge by the way the Secretary of State is talking to his deposed Minister of State, the chances of his learning anything in the next few minutes are not greatly increased.
Ministers have foisted on the country a scheme deficient in administration and haphazard in its effects. Over 3 million households will be affected by the latest changes in the rules. Over 2 million households will be affected by the taper changes. That means that people will lose money. When money is taken out of people's pockets, it does not matter to them whether the rate of inflation is going up or down. Once the money is taken away, it cannot be spent. It means a lowering of their standard of living. It is as bad as if the Minister had allowed inflation to increase by an equivalent amount. As my hon. Friend


the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, that is equivalent to two weeks' food money for a pensioner family. For most of us, that sum would not be an insuperable loss, although our wives might disagree, but for a pensioner household which budgets carefully the sudden and unexpected loss of two weeks' food money in the next year will be terrible.
I support the motion as much for what it does not say as for what it does. I regret that the terms of the motion are so narrow, because there will be losers outside the occupational schemes. Here I come back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) said. Under the taper arrangements alone, some 550,000 households of people in work will lose as a result of the changes, and 70,000 of those households will lose over £3 a week, which is a considerable loss of income. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), who was so concerned about the low paid but who has now deserted us, would have done well to stay and listen to this. That loss of £3 will considerably affect the standard of living of these people. In addition, there is the non-dependants' deduction. The Secretary of State, in his press release and again this afternoon, misled the House by carefully sliding over all the facts. He has said, "Is it not reasonable that non-dependants in a household who are working should contribute towards the household expenses? Is it not true that non-dependants who are receiving supplementary benefit will not be affected?", as if those are the only two categories involved. I am not in the game of playing one category of beneficiaries off against the other.
The Secretary of State, both this afternoon and in his press release on the scheme, did not reveal that disabled teenagers who have no supplementary benefit above their invalidity benefit or their non-contributory invalidity pension are also deemed to have paid £3·10, or £2·65 or £1·65, according to their aid, extra towards the household expenses. It is a complete misconception, and a deception, to say that it is only working non-dependants who will have some of their benefits clawed back by this scheme.

Mr. Fowler: I accept the force of what the hon. Member has just said, and that is one of the groups to which we shall pay special attention in our consideration of the scheme.

Mr. John: That is fine, but we know that if this group benefits from this marvellous scheme there is still the £233 million savings to be made, which means that someone else will suffer. I welcome the decision to re-examine this scheme, but the right hon. Gentleman should do so with a view to cutting the savings to include these people rather than shift the savings to some other group.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman about what he is doing to disabled non-dependants. If they are in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension, he is expecting them to contribute the equivalent of over 40 per cent. of their weekly income to household expenses. He is telling them that they are deemed to give to their parents 40 per cent. of their total weekly income from the benefit, and if their parents refuse to take the money they suffer accordingly.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about real benefits under this Government, but the real value of the invalidity benefit — these figures were given by the Under-Secretary of State in answer to a written question

by me today—between 1979 and now has dropped by £1 a week for a single person. Nevertheless, that single person, who has received in real terms £1 less, is expected to contribute up to 25 per cent. of what he is receiving every week towards the household. That is grotesquely unfair, and one of the reasons why I hope that the motion is passed is that it will force the Government not only to examine the plight of sectional interests but to re-examine the whole of this wretched scheme, so badly introduced and thought out, and to look at the SSAC report.
When the Secretary of State said that the social security budget need not be sacrosanct, he ignored two factors. One is that since 1979 housing expenditure under this Government has more than halved so that rent and; fates have gone up in every area. The Government are having to shell out in extra housing benefit because they have forced local authorities to increase rents and rates. Secondly, there are more claimants for state benefits now than ever before. There is not only the unemployment benefit but the supplementary benefit for the long-term unemployed.
When we talk about the real increase, we must talk about the quality of the benefit received. The quality of the benefit received by housing beneficiaries as a result of this change in the regulations has been changed so that many people lose and nobody gains. That is why the regulations should be scrapped forthwith and the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he can devise a system that is fairer to many of the most disadvantaged and to the 40,000 households under needs allowance that are losing as a result of the regulations.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is fair, and the reason why we increased the mortgage interest threshold to £30,000, and if he thinks that that is working equity between two groups of people, his idea of equity is grossly distorted. I call upon every hon. Member to remember the realities, which are that the Government are acting to make millions of people worse off as a result of these changes. They should be forced to take the regulations away and bring hack new and more just ones.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The theory behind what the Government have done is right. The system, as it is intended to work, is simpler and avoids administrative waste, which is a serious matter—1 know of no one who is helped by administrative waste. The system surmounts the problem that had become serious whereby a growing number of people simply pocketed and spent the rent money handed to them. There is no question about it. I know of the great difficulties of some local authorities where rents remained unpaid although the money had been paid to the tenants for the bill to be met. That deprived the rate funds, and thus ordinary ratepayers, in every city where it happened. We have forgotten that that is one of the major reasons why the Government introduced this provision.
Such an abuse also deprived the private landlords of their rights to collect rent from their tenants. I hope that no Labour Member has any feeling against private landlords, many of whom have honourably put a little money into private property to get a little income in addition to their pensions when they became older. They were seriously harmed by these unscrupulous people who, having received the money to pay the rent, did not pay it over.
The welfare state started with excellent intentions, and much of it is excellent in operation today, but we must consider whether it is becoming an albatross around the necks of the British people. I, like every other hon. Member, want care and help for people who need it. Those are the people that I want to help, but I do not want to make help available for people who are well able to help themselves. When I read that almost half of the population of Britain currently receives housing benefit, I begin to wonder how long the situation can go on.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) drew our attention to one or two cases. I should like to draw attention to one or two other cases—for instance, a family in which the father and one son or daughter at work may easily have a total household income of £11,000 a year and still qualify for a rebate of £2·47 on rent and rates of £27 a week. There are other cases, too. I know of another case involving an income of £15,000 a year and the people in the house still qualifying for housing benefit. That cannot possibly be right.
In my opinion, there are two major reasons why that is wrong. If Labour Members think that that is so funny, I can only say that they have a very odd idea of the way in which public money should be managed. It is wrong on two major grounds to give benefit to people who do not need it. The first is that the money comes from all the rest of the people in the country, many of whom will be less well off than the beneficiaries.

Mr. Harry Cowans: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I am trying to be brief. The hon. Gentleman can seek to make his own speech when I have finished.
Secondly, it is surely true that no country's economy can survive if half of its citizens are living on handouts from the other half. That is simply not an economically viable proposition.
The Government's action on housing benefit is entirely right in theory. However, I am unhappy about the way that it is working out in practice. My right hon. Friend knows how I feel, and we have discussed the matter. I am very concerned about pensioners who are in difficulties because the scheme is not working as smoothly as was originally intended. I was appalled to hear that some of the cases cited by the hon. Member for Oldham, West had never been brought to the attention of a Member of Parliament. Cases have been brought to me about hardship as a result of the way the scheme is working, and I immediately set about sorting out the problems, as I am sure all hon. Members have done. If cases are brought to the attention of hon. Members, they will be resolved, but I am worried about the number of cases that have been put to me.
One of my constituents, who has three children, and whose income is only £61 a week, fears that his income is dropping by just over 90p a week. That may not seem a lot to some of us, but it seems an awful lot to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am concerned about these matters.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look long and hard, not at the theory of what he seeks to do—he will get the support of both my hon. Friends and myself on the theory—but at the way in which the scheme is working out. That is causing great concern on the Conservative Benches. We are anxious to support my right hon. Friend,

but it is our duty to bring to his attention cases where the arrangements need an overhaul. I beg him to take a long hard look at the whole system.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: One of the most revealing insights of any society is the attitude that it adopts to its poorest and weakest members. Frankly, the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) was extremely disturbing, if it represents present Conservative thought about the weakest members of society, when she described the welfare state as an albatross. There are problems with the working of the welfare state. One of the greatest problems involves take-up, in that not enough people benefit who are entitled to benefit. However, that is a criticism not of the principle itself, but of the way in which it is practised. It is disgraceful that the hon. Lady should describe the welfare state as an albatross, when it is there to help the weakest members of society.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman did not listen properly to what I said. The fact is that we cannot afford to help the people who need our help most if we continue to support, with public money, people and households with incomes of £15,000 or 11,000. The hon. Gentleman must face that fact.

Mr. Kennedy: Surely the truth is that we cannot afford to help the poorest and weakest in society because so much state expenditure goes on the ridiculous levels of unemployment, generated by the economic policies of this Government. That is why we cannot afford to help them. That is the disgrace that should be changed. The money which the Government find to purchase a costly and dangerous Trident missile programme could be better channelled into helping the poor people of our country.
I wish to relate my remarks, in particular, to pensioners. The Prime Minister often says that the greatest service that can be done for them is to keep down inflation. Clearly that helps pensioners, and, as was pointed out earlier in an intervention, it is something that any sensible person would support, but the Secretary of State must surely realise that pensioners will suffer a double blow as a result of these changes. Age Concern, when talking about the estimated drop of £1·52 in rent and 43p in rate benefits, said that
there appears to be an official incomprehension of the significance of such an amount to poor households.
It has been estimated that the average drop in annual income that pensioners will suffer amounts to about two weeks spending on food. It is as basic as that. Is it not a disgrace, as we head towards the end of the 20th century, in the country which created a welfare state which is the envy of many other nations, that we are now introducing a measure which amounts to two weeks' food provision for old people? It is a disgusting state of affairs.
The second blow that pensioners will suffer was revealed in a written answer from the Department of the Environment. It made it clear that those pensioners who will no longer be entitled to housing benefit as a result of today's changes will in future qualify only for 66 per cent. home insulation grants, rather than the 90 per cent. for which they are now eligible. I give the Secretary of State credit where credit is due. He said that there could be modifications. However, he is not in charge of the Department of the Environment, and there is no sign of any modifications being made.

Mr. Cowans: The hon. Gentleman should not say that the Secretary of State cannot do anything. The reduction has come about because pensioners are to lose housing benefit. The Secretary of State can do something immediately about that by altering the scheme and enabling them still to claim housing benefit and get the 90 per cent. grant.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) for his intervention. It seems that my generosity to the Secretary of State was ill founded. I am happy to be corrected in that constructive fashion.
Conveniently, the Government appear unwilling to give figures for the number of pensioners living in uninsulated homes. As was revealed in exchanges in years gone by, initiated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) once he had left the Government, they do not do so because of the severe embarrassment which would be caused to any Government, irrespective of their political colour.
There is no doubt that pensioners are suffering a double blow as a result of what the Government are doing in legislation. I hope, therefore, that they will at least find it possible to support the ten-minute Bill introduced yesterday, which I hope will come before the House as a private Member's Bill later in this Session. It stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and seeks to abolish standing charges from gas and electricity bills for pensioners. That would be a step forward and perhaps the Government will be able to give it positive support when it comes before the House.
The Low Pay Unit, in anticipation of the autumn statement by the Chancellor, issued a paper called "Deepening the Poverty Trap" and, like the Institute of Fiscal Studies this week, it has highlighted how this measure will deepen that poverty trap and also deepen the unemployment trap. In other words, this is a retrograde step. It does nothing at all to improve the lot of those who are suffering badly as a result of the economic policies being pursued by the Treasury.
It is indeed sad that the Government cannot find it in their hearts, when their case is presented at the Dispatch Box, to do something positive and give some measure of hope and practical support to those people. The Government are judged by their attitude to the poorest and weakest in society. What we are seeing today is what we have seen since 1979—the poorest and weakest being given a very low priority.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West quoted from The Times and the Daily Telegraph. I should like to quote from The Guardian, which I think the Government will accept is a fairly objective newspaper. I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts it, because The Guardian frequently embarrasses him by printing the facts, for which many right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition are grateful, because there is complete reticence on the Treasury Bench when it comes to giving us the facts.
This is the political reality. The financial reality for millions of hard-up households,
The Guardian said on 28 November 1983,
will be hardship, in some cases acute. And the electoral consequence of all this may be more than the Government has bargained for.
There may not be unanimity on the Opposition side of the House as to who should benefit from those electoral consequences, but let us hope that when they become clear and when the Government are the victims the result will

be that the new administration, no matter what their political complexion, will give greater priority to the alleviation of poverty. A first step towards that would be a reversal of the policy which the Secretary of State has expounded today. It is wrong, selfish and arrogant, in that it fails to give sufficient support to those in our society who most need it. The welfare state is something to be proud of, to improve, not something to try to constrain and render inoperative by measures such as this.
On behalf of the SDP and the Liberal party, I offer complete support for the motion.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will forgive me if I do not deal in any detail with the points that he raised, but in passing I should like to say that I was surprised at the critical comments that he made about defence expenditure. If he consults the leader of his party, he may find that his leader is anxious for the country to be properly defended.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The leader, like the members, of our party does wish the country to be properly defended, but we made it clear during the election campaign that Trident would be not part of our defence policy.

Mr. Bowden: At the risk of being called out of order, I must say that there is no way of defending this country properly without spending a great deal of money, no matter how it is spent.
Last autumn the Chancellor acted to control expenditure limits which were well in excess of previously agreed figures. As a result, Departments of State were asked to find additional reductions in expenditure to bring their budgets back to the original figures. The Department of Health and Social Security declared that as its share of cutting back—not below the original figures, but on the increase—it would find reductions of £230 million in housing benefit. Because of the position that the Chancellor faced at that time, it was right that he took rapid action.
What I suspect—and this is no criticism of my right hon. Friend—is that when it was decided to cut back on housing benefit to that degree at that time the full effect of such action on pensioners and others was not realised. As a result of a significant number of parliamentary questions tabled by myself and others from both sides of the House a picture emerged about which the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are, I know, deeply unhappy.
It is on one particular area that we are concentrating our attention today, namely those pensioners who receive a small occupational pension or who have some other limited income. I believe that this group is rather exceptional. A large part of its members' working lives was spent during the war and in the years immediately afterwards when it became increasingly difficult to earn sufficient money either to gain a reasonable occupational pension or to put sufficient savings away with which to supplement the state retirement pension. During that time they paid tax like everybody else. As a group they were determined to do everything possible to ensure that in their retirement they would be independent of any additional help from either the state or their families.
They then found that Governments—some more than others — had created a situation where inflation had destroyed the value of their occupational pensions. Inflation rates of 20 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent. when many of these people were in employment totally undermined the occupational pension and the value of what they expected to receive at the end of their working lives. Governments have a responsibility for that. Without doubt, in the terms of the amendment, the major priority must be the defeat of inflation, but, because Governments destroyed the value of those occupational pensions, they were under an obligation to go at least some way towards making up the loss of purchasing value of those pensions, and one of the ways in which that was done was through the housing benefit.
It deeply worries me when we talk about an average of 80p. It goes much further than that. About 340,000 pensioners who are between only £10 and £20 a week above the needs allowance will lose more than £1. People in this group have seen the value of their occupational pensions undermined because it must not be forgotten that, unlike the state pension, the vast majority of occupational pensions were once inflation-proof, though they might contain scope for some minor adjustments.
The occupational pensions of many of these people were destroyed. A high percentage of them pay tax. Are we really suggesting that we should hit them even harder by removing a significant part of their housing benefit? Another 210,000 people will lose £1.50 or more a week. As I have said, I regard housing benefit as a means by which the Government have done a little to recompense people for having undermined their occupational pensions.
I thank the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for the kind things that he said about me. I am not sure that they have done me a great deal of good, but I thank him nevertheless. He raised a startling case, of which I shall briefly remind the House. Tenants who were not liable to pay any rent got into heavy arrears—£248 — and were then served with a notice to seek possession. I entirely understand that the hon. Gentleman was not able to name the council involved. I do not know its name, but if any right hon. or hon. Member does it would be most helpful for the House to know it. If such a case in Brighton came to my notice, I should be in the chief executive's office the following day wanting to know what on earth was going on, and wanting an explanation for such scandalous behaviour. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) knows the name of the council. Will she tell us?

Ms. Clare Short: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know the name of the council to which he has referred. However, in Birmingham there are many people who have got into arrears because the council will not pay their benefit and have therefore been given or threatened with receipt of notices to quit. I have been made aware of some such cases and know that my colleagues in Birmingham have had similar experiences. The problem which the hon. Gentleman describes is common in Birmingham.

Mr. Bowden: The local authority in Brighton has had considerable problems, and there have been many serious delays, but there has never been a case such as those which the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Oldham, West

have mentioned. I am sure that any right hon. or hon. Member who was presented with such a case by a constituent would be in the council's offices within 24 hours demanding action, apologies and withdrawal of the notice to quit and would severely reprimand the responsible officials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which party is in power in Birmingham?"] I am not in the least concerned about which party controls that council. If they have not already done so, the various citizens advice bureaux have a duty to inform the local Member for Parliament of what is happening and to reveal the name of the authority. If the local Member of Parliament concerned is present he should get to his feet now, with, of course, your permission Mr. Speaker. It is an absolute scandal that a family should be subjected to such treatment.
The case wich the hon. Member for Oldham, West raised illustrates the point that the housing benefit scheme has created much hardship. It has put many pensioners into circumstances in which they have never been before—in debt. We should not forget that we are discussing a generation for which never being in debt is a matter of personal and family pride. Unfortunately, not quite so many people believe in that principle today. Like, I am sure, most other hon. Members, I have seen people in my advice surgery and received letters from people who are desperately unhappy about being in debt. If we make major alterations such as are proposed, it is inevitable that, next April or May, the system, which is now just over the worst—I admit that there are still black spots—will be thrown into chaos again. The result of that chaos will be more pensioners and others being in the circumstances which have been described. That is unacceptable to me and to many other hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the matter carefully.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said. I entirely accept his undertaking to examine the scheme to assess what modifications can be made. However, I want him to go further. I want him to exclude occupational pensioners, for the reasons that I have outlined. The House and the nation owes those people a debt. Such a step is one way in which it might be partially repaid.
I intend to vote for the Oppositon motion, which was tabled as an early-day motion last year. I intend also to abstain on the amendment, although it is brilliantly worded. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. Unless there are major changes to the proposed new regulations, I believe that my right hon. Friend will discover that many of my colleagues will find it extremely difficult to support them when they are debated in the House.

Ms. Clare Short: I welcome the opportunity to debate this extremely important issue at a more reasonable time—the previous opportunity was at 4 am during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Last night I attended a meeting in a part of my constituency where a high proportion of the population live in council rented accommodation. During the discussion the threatened cut in housing benefit was mentioned, as was the chaos that has been experienced in Birmingham. It was chaos and many people suffered from it in the way which so shocked the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).
People at the meeting expressed fear that many poor people will lose money that they cannot afford to lose, and that there will be a return of the chaos that affects everyone who is part of the housing benefit scheme. We also discussed the threatened closure of the Dudley road advice centre, which has done an enormous amount of work to help people with their DHSS claims and with problems associated with the chaos of housing benefit. It appears that that advice centre will not be there when the scheme is thrown back into chaos. We also mentioned the threatened closure of the Ladywood school and the Handsworth new road school. Someone at the back of the hall said: "The truth is, you know, they just do not care about us, the Conservative Government and the Conservative-controlled Birmingham council. They do not care about people around here. They have put up our rents and they have taken away our jobs." The central part of my constituency suffers the highest level of unemployment in Birmingham — 47·7 per cent. The person at the meeting continued: "They take away our advice centres, they cut our benefit and they are taking away our schools." That is true.
I do not believe that Conservative Members know what is going on in the poorer areas of the country. If they do know what is happening, that is shocking. I represent the area in which I grew up. It was never rich, but when my generation left school we could all expect to get a job. Of the most recent bunch of school leavers in Handsworth, only one in 134 can expect to get a job. Although adult unemployment stands at 47·7 per cent, jobs hardly exist for young people.
The area's poverty can be seen as one walks around the streets. One can see it in people's clothes. It is possible to see the misery and the strain of families in advice bureaux such as those run by Members of Parliament. It is shocking and getting worse all the time. On top of that, the Government intend to take more away.
Last Sunday I listened carefully to the Prime Minister, who attempted to explain to Brian Walden, who once represented the constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood but who has now forgotten our problems, why she has failed to keep the two major promises on which this and her previous Government were elected. They were to cut taxes and public expenditure. Clearly, she does not understand what is wrong, for she will never fulfil those promises unless she cuts unemployment. Unemployment has increased, the tax intake has decreased, and massive costs are involved in keeping people in the dole queue. Therefore, to keep public expenditure stable, the Prime Minister seeks to withdraw public services.
The cause of the problem is a failed economic policy. The experiment is not working. For goodness sake, let us have change so that areas such as the one that I represent can have hope. The Prime Minister promised during the programme to strain to cut taxation and public expenditure further. That is the justification given for such proposals. Instead, she and the Secretary of State for Social Services should promise to strain to cut unemployment. Then we would have the resources for a decent welfare state and to take proper care of all our people.
The Government do not seem to care about the people about whom we are talking. They constantly boast that they are encouraging home ownership, but they do not understand that some people must, and always will, live in rented accommodation. Those people are worthy of respect, compassion and humanity from the Government.

Pensioners will never be able to buy their own houses; nor will single parents, young people or the unemployed. It is not good enough for the Government to write off 'that group of people. First the Government took away their livelihood and then the Government cut the benefits on which they rely.
The Government told the House which groups would pay for the cuts. They are the least well off. It is true that people on supplementary benefit are the poorest, and that they will not suffer this time, but all hon. Members have heard calls from Tory Members for cuts in supplementary benefit. Those calls have gone away for the time being, but no doubt they will return. That group will not suffer, but the next group up—some of the poorest people in Britain, but not those on supplementary benefit—which consists of occupational pensioners, the few young people who are in work, though often on low wages, the 18 to 20-year-olds who are unemployed and the low paid, will. The Government claim to be concerned about the poverty trap, yet with the proposals they are deliberately and seriously deepening it.
Earlier in the debate Conservative Members challenged the Opposition to say from where the money was to come if not from these cuts. The Government seek to justify 'the cuts, yet in the Budget they gave away additional money in mortgage tax relief. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) told us that the welfare state was an albatross, and seemed completely unconcerned that billions of pounds were given away in mortgage tax relief. There is no justification for that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, all hon. Members are in favour of the principle of unified housing benefit, but to call the scheme that—it was introduced in such a mean-minded way with insufficient resources for administering it—and to say that it is desirable, is unworthy.
When the Government introduced the current housing benefit scheme many poor families lost. We should remind ourselves of the figures. Some 400,000 people who previously received help with rent and rates lost the benefit that they used to receive. More than 2 million people received less than they did previously. As a result of the Chancellor's autumn statement, even more poor families will lose. To save £230 million the Government estimate that a further 540,000 people will cease to receive any help whatsoever, 270,000 of whom are pensioners and 270,000 low-paid earners. About 2,170,000 people will lose their benefits and become poorer. About half of them are pensioners and half a million are families with children. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the real figure for those who will lose under the proposal is 4·5 million. That figure is bigger than the 2 million quoted by the Government because 2 million people who are entitled to claim under the scheme do not do so.
The Government told the House that the average loss would be 80p per household. It will vary from as little as that to as much as £13.75. For families living in poverty even £1 is a great deal, yet one family can lose as much as £13.75. On top of the increased poverty, the whole scheme will undoubtedly be thrown back into chaos. Therefore, all those who will not suffer from the loss of income, will suffer through the maladministration of the scheme.
I appeal sincerely to the Government to think again. It is neither courageous nor resolute to go on doing the wrong thing, but stubborn, stupid and cruel. It is not good


enough. I appeal to Conservative Members when they vote tonight to think of the sort of people who live in Ladywood. Those people are not unworthy and cannot be written off. They want to work and to have decent lives and houses. The Government have taken away their chance to work, among other things, and these cuts will be a further blow. If Conservative Members care for these people at all, they should vote against the amendment.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Before considering the future, it is necessary to consider the present. Banbury is served by a sensible district council with committed council officers. It has an active citizen's advice bureau, staffed by sensible, intelligent and caring people. Neither the Cherwell district council staff nor the Banbury CAB volunteers have a particular axe to grind, and they approach matters with common sense, judgment, straightforward thinking and plain speaking.
The clear message that I have received from all those involved closely with housing benefits in Banbury and north Oxfordshire in the past months is that there is a consensus of concern that the housing benefit scheme is in a mess. Instead of introducing a unified, simplified scheme for rent and rate rebates, we have brought about a housing benefit scheme which may be more comprehensive, but which is certainly not more comprehensible. It is incomprehensible to those who administer it and to those whom it is intended to assist. It may even be incomprehensible to some of those at the DHSS offices at the Elephant and Castle. As the The Times said on 6 January:
What has been perturbing is the trickle of calculations showing that neither Ministers nor officials knew accurately the results of the changes they were proposing.
As yesterday's report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux made clear, the present scheme is practically unworkable.
In the event, there seem to have been no advantages from the introduction of housing benefit. Any savings in DHSS staff levels as a result of the change have been offset in staff recruited by district councils, and any minimal overall reduction has been achieved only by local authorities having to administer housing benefit with inadequate staff and insufficient resources. Without ensuring adequate administrative groundwork it was inevitable that implementing, at nil cost, a major reform of the overlap between local authority rent and rate rebates and DHSS payments for housing costs would end in tears. Judging from all the evidence, that is what has happened.
We now need an urgent rethink of the whole scheme. There must be research to ensure a full and fair system to provide adequate help with housing costs for those truly in need. It is no good saying that the proposed changes in housing benefit will affect only the better off. The better off should not receive housing benefit in any event; but with a scheme as complex as the present one, the suspicion is that those who will be affected by the changes are not the better off in absolute terms, but those who are slightly better off than, for example, single pensioners or those receiving supplementary benefit.
I have always understood it to be an essential and fundamental principle of Conservatism that while we hope to erect ladders up which people may climb, we shall

always ensure a floor below which no one shall fall. However, if the system of housing benefit is so complex that no one can see the floor, there is a danger that a change will inadvertently cause people to fall below it, that unfairness may be caused between groups of beneficiaries, and that the problem of the poverty trap will be intensified. We need a long-term constructive approach to the problems of the poor and the low paid.
I have always believed that further research on a system of negative income tax would produce dividends. The need for a thorough review is illustrated by the fact that about 60 per cent. of current recipients of housing benefit pay income tax, and one in 10 of those presently receiving housing benefit pay income tax of more than £15 a week. Little wonder that there is confusion, with such a Rabelaisian relationship between tax and benefits. Little wonder that the poverty trap becomes greater when nearly two thirds of those who receive housing benefit must pay income tax. Either people have an overall income that is so low that they need assistance with their housing costs, in which case why are they paying income tax, or people's earnings are so high that they qualify for income tax, in which case why are they receiving housing benefit? One can only hope that the difficulties experienced during the past four months will bring about a thorough review to ensure that only those truly in need receive adequate assistance.
We also need remedial action in the short term, such as the publication of leaflets explaining each housing benefit so that it can be easily understood by prospective claimants, and the design of more easily understandable housing benefit application forms, which can be adapted by local authorities according to their local circumstances.
Although I accept everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said about Members of Parliament intervening with their local authorities when they come across difficult cases, one of my worries during the past few months—I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has been worried about it — is that even well-ordered local authorities, such as Cherwell district council, have so many queries that often the intervention of a Member of Parliament succeeds only in taking a query from the bottom of the pile and putting it on the top.
What of the future and the proposed regulations to take account of the £230 million savings in housing benefit announced in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There can be no objection to the Government wishing to reduce the overall cost of housing benefit. As housing benefit reaches further up the income scale than does any other benefit in the social security system, there may be good grounds for reducing the eligibility of some recipients. There can be no objection to grown-up children aged over 18, living at home and earning the average male wage of £95 a week, or the average female wage of £78·20 a week, being asked to contribute about £8·20 a week out of their earnings to the family kitty. That is perfectly reasonable.
However, it is worrying that some people will be brought into the poverty trap as low-paid workers and lose an increasingly large proportion in tax or reduced benefit of every extra pound that they earn. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated that there would be an increase of about 150,000 of those on low incomes who, as a result of the proposed changes, will lose more than 75p of every new pound earned. That is higher than the marginal tax rates


on the highest incomes, and is completely inconsistent with the Conservative party's desire to tackle the unemployment trap.
Many of us will be interested to hear what steps the Government intend to take to tackle the poverty trap in the immediate future, and to help those who are climbing the ladder of low-paid employment. The social security advisory committee estimates that about 38,000 families below the needs allowance will lose. I hope that when the regulations are laid, the Government can demonstrate beyond peradventure that the savings that they intend to make will not intensify the poverty trap and will not affect those on low incomes or those below the needs allowance.
One recognises that nearly every social security benefit has increased in real terms since the Conservative party came to office, and the greatest help that we can give to social security beneficiaries is to continue the fight against inflation. One recognises how much has been achieved under the leadership of those proposing the amendment to the motion. All the more reason for now ensuring a rational system of housing benefits and of ensuring that the April changes do not cause injustice or hardship.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Northern Ireland Members are also deeply worried about the plight of those senior citizens who will be deprived of all, or a substantial proportion of, housing benefit because they receive occupational pensions. I appreciate that Ulster will be shielded from some of the effects until later, but the effects will eventually be felt.
It is generally admitted that there will be a considerable saving in the administrative cost of the new housing benefits scheme. If that is the case, why deprive the most disadvantaged by introducing a system with a loser element? Those who lose will he better-off—that is the term used—recipients of housing benefit. Nevertheless, they are recognised by the Government as being sufficiently impoverished to be in need of assistance with their housing costs.
There is much anxiety in Northern Ireland about rent rebating at source. I heard what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said about this, but in Northern Ireland the system is considered to impose unnecessary interference with the right of individuals to organise their financial policies. It is especially offensive to those who, despite poverty, regularly meet their rent obligations. The erosion of individual liberties which rebating at source implies is demeaning and degrading, since it is generally accepted that adequate legal and administrative arrangements are in force to deal with the problem, including, where necessary, the application of rent direct.
The Government should be aware of the problems of those who float off supplementary benefit. Many of those people are pensioners, who will have great difficulty in understanding the present scheme. I hope that the Government will ensure that those who float off supplementary benefit are fully informed of the benefits to which they are still entitled.
I should mention the differential between certificated cases and standard cases. Certificated cases are among the most needy, and it is appropriate that administrative regulations should ensure their efficient service and protection from bureaucratic error. It is also appropriate to accord similar protection to standard cases. The small

additional cost of introducing such procedures would be more than justified and would be good administrative practice.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: We have heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). It does the House no harm to hear about the pain and difficulty experienced in some of the worst parts of our inner cities, however untypical those areas may be. I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not present to hear what I have to say.
Over the years, a substantial programme of inner city partnership has been created between the local councils and the Government to alleviate such difficulties. The city council which the hon. Lady so readily accused of not caring has just agreed— as I mentioned to the Prime Minister this afternoon — to reduce its rates for the second time. The rates of all ratepayers in that city, including business ratepayers, are now among the lowest in the country. That fact will attract business, industry and employment. In that city, as in many others, Conservatives have cared in a very practical way. They have done substantially more than make moving speeches.
This time last year it was my miserable lot to administer the housing benefit scheme in Birmingham. If I have any grey hairs at all, that is why. The principles of the scheme were excellent. The first was that, instead of going from the DHSS to the tenants to be passed on to the council housing department, the money should go direct. One link should be cut out. That was excellent, because rent arrears had amounted to about 10 per cent. of the total rent roll. In many London boroughs, rent roll arrears stood at 30, 40 or 50 per cent. One cannot run a department when the money is not coming in. The second principle was that an attempt should be made to unite the different schemes; the scheme was originally called the unified housing benefit scheme. The different rebates, rent allowances and so on should be put together.
I am puzzled about why we got into such a muddle I think that there were several reasons, some of which were specific to Birmingham while others were more general. The timetable was far too short. That has been recognised by the Department and the timetables have been extended. Some details were not well thought out. For instance, the start date should have been 15 or 22 November. Some authorities collected rents in arrear and others in advance, but that was not clear until afterwards, which was rather late for many tenants. There was also the failure to include water and sewage rates. A large number of people in my constituency now have rent books in which they pay to the local council £20 or 85p a week for their water and sewage rates. That is plain silly. The costs of collection must amount to more than that. It must be possible to put that right.
Most of the difficulties were caused by the wider scheme introduced in April because, I suspect, instead of reducing the number of linkages, we increased it. Instead of going from the DHSS to the tenant and then to the housing association, the money now goes from the DHSS to the local authority and then to the housing association, and the tenant is somewhere in the middle. The greater the number of linkages, the easier it is to lose the files. The greater the number of bureaucracies involved, the worse the situation can become.
Furthermore, in many big cities the DHSS has failed to respond quickly enough to the changes required. It takes about six months to respond to an uprating in rent, rates or allowances. In Birmingham, the DHSS was always about six months behind. I introduced a rent increase in October 1982. There had been a rate cut in April 1982. There was also a benefit uprating in November 1982. That is three changes in six months. I was told that the DHSS had the biggest computer in Europe, but at times I seriously wondered whether it had been plugged in. The delay, added to the effects of strikes in DHSS offices in Birmingham and elsewhere, made life very difficult.
A year such as I experienced would persuade anyone who was in favour of switching from rates to a system of local income tax to change his mind. The sheer administrative pain of changing from one system to another would be too great. There would be 20 million households changing over from one system to another, and a computer at the Inland Revenue that might or might not be working.
The scheme is now settling down very well. Whatever letters may have gone out—the matter was discussed in Birmingham council last week—there has not been a single eviction resulting from the working of the scheme. However, I am sure that some people are still going to the citizens advice bureau with glib stories about their difficulties. Some tenants are still refusing to accept responsibility for arrears built up before the scheme became operative. Those arrears are their responsibility, and I have very little sympathy for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) mentioned one or two cases. Let us take the case of a couple, with two young children, receiving child benefit. If the husband's income was the only income and he was picking up £10,000 a year—that would be a typical case in my constituency—and if the rates bill was £11 a week — that is typical too because Derbyshire rates are something chronic—that household would qualify for housing benefit. Yet a family with £10,000 a year is not badly off.
I hate to use notes, Mr. Speaker, but the matter is so complicated that I have to do so. Let us take the case of a man earning £100 a week, with a wife, and two sons each of whom also earns £100 a week. Perhaps the three of them work in British Rail in Derby or in Melbourne Engineering. The family would have a total income of £15,000 a year but they would probably qualify for a fairly substantial rebate, even if they were paying £28 a week in rent and rates. That family, with three incomes and three tax allowances against earned income, would be a darned sight better off than many hon. Members. If we cannot claim to be poor, that family cannot do so either. It is wrong that they should be entitled to claim rebates.
Those examples were produced by the Conservative research department but I also have one from SHAC, the Shelter housing aid centre. SHAC states that each of the changes recently introduced can have a serious financial effect. It continues:
Where however 3 or 4 coincide, as they do in the following … example, the results are truly shocking.
Here is the example:
A family with 3 children, 2 at school, one (aged 18) living at home, with a total income of £160 a week, living in an area which currently has a high rent area authorisation, and paying £36 a week rent, £12 a week rates.

That family will lose benefit—and this is the highest case that can be found—of £13·75 a week.
I have made some inquiries of those of my hon. Friends who are estate agents or who are involved with building societies and banks. I asked them what they would do if someone said to them, "I want to buy a house. I can afford £36 a week, not counting rates, and my total income is £160 a week. What can I have?" I have been told that such a person could have a mortgage of £20,000. In my constituency, he could probably buy two houses. I deplore the fact that such a family should qualify for benefit.
Those aged from 18 to 20 and in work will be expected to pay the full adult contribution rather than £1·60 and £3·95 as at present. They will be expected to contribute £8·20 to the household income. I used to be a university landlady. As such, I received advice from Birmingham university, the polytechnic and one or two other institutions. Landladies are advised to charge students—and remember that students pick up less than £40 a week —£20 or £25 a week, and to make sure that there is a meter in their room and that they pay for their gas and electricity on top.
In the opinion of the university, that is what it costs to keep a healthy 19-year-old student who is probably eating one out of house and home, as all mine did. However, the DHSS is asking young people to contribute only £8·20 a week. We should not cry crocodile tears because of that.
There are many occupational pensioners in my constituency. They may have worked for British Rail, the National Coal Board or Rolls-Royce. On the whole, they are not among the substantially well-off occupational pensioners. There seems to be a growing tendency to take occupational pensions into account as if they were earnings. As far as I can tell, that began with the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. The ratings introduced nearly three years ago, in April 1981, have not been increased since then. Ministers may well want to consider that.
That Act referred to unemployment benefit, but at that time the debate centred on the fact that many occupational pensioners who had reached the age of 60—everybody talked about bank managers—had effectively retired. It was said, therefore, that the benefit that they were receiving should be calculated as if they had retired. As Conservatives, we should be as generous as possible with occupational pensions, on the principle that if Mr. Bloggs has paid into a fund and can look after himself the state does not have to look after him. We should actively encourage that sort of thing.
I believe that, as far as possible, we should relieveoccupational pensioners of income tax. I know that that would cost a lot of money and that it is unlikely to happen, but I see it as a principle that should be put into action.[Interruption.] I shall not help the Opposition in any way. The Labour party's interest in this important subject, which affects millions of our constituents, is shown by the fact that for long periods there have been no more than six Opposition Members in the Chamber.[Interruption.] It is the Labour party's motion. Indeed, I may well inadvertently have included in that figure one or two Northern Ireland Members. If I have done so, I apologise.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I shall not give way.
Two thirds of all households will not be affected by the housing benefit changes introduced as a result of the


autumn statement. For those affected, the average figure will be less than £1 and the figure for half of them will be less than 50p. Most pensioners will not be affected at all. Even the statistics from Age Concern show that. Most of those affected will lose only pennies, and that should be stated very clearly. In many cases they will be better off under this scheme than they were even in 1982–83.
I am absolutely certain that if the Opposition had introduced and implemented the housing benefit scheme they would have made a far worse mess of it. On that ground alone, I am happy to oppose the motion.

Mr. Sean Hughes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), I, too, listened to the Prime Minister's interview on "Weekend World" last Sunday. We had to listen to her assuring us that living standards had risen under this Government. This week we were assured of the same rising optimism by The Standard. In my borough of Knowsley, talk of an improvement in living standards or about the imminence of economic recovery would be considered proof of insanity. The plight of people in areas such as mine will be made much worse by the proposed changes in housing benefit.
In his written reply on 17 November 1983, the Secretary of State for Social Services said that for housing benefit recipients, the changes in current arrangements
will be concentrated generally on the relatively better-off households".—[Official Report, 17 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 574.]
"Relatively better off"—but to whom? Certainly not to the Secretary of State or the Conservative party. The Secretary of State is establishing gradations of poverty in areas such as mine.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, a week does not go by that we do not receive representations from constituents about the existing anomalies in the housing benefit system. People have found themselves in rent arrears for the first time in their lives because of the bungled way in which the system has been introduced. The scheme has produced confusion, fear and anger since it was first introduced. Now that is to be exacerbated.
The changes will reduce the benefit payable to nearly 6,500 claimants in the borough of Knowsley, because of the changes in the tapers above the needs allowance. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State stressed his concern, and that of the Government, for the plight of pensioners. The number of claimants affected in my borough are 3,427 council tenants, over half of whom are pensioners; 2,380 owner occupiers, over half of whom are pensioners; and 639 private tenants, over two thirds of whom are pensioners. No wonder the Government advisory committee deplored those cuts in the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
In my borough not only will 6,446 claimants be adversely affected as I have described, but up to a further 6,500 claimants may be affected, as their benefits could be reduced because of changes in the non-dependant deductions. I shall comment briefly on the non-dependant deductions, which I consider to be particularly mean-minded and harsh. Until now, a 16 or 17-year-old was not counted against the housing benefit, but as from April—if these miserly proposals go through—he or she will be

expected to contribute £3·10. How in heaven's name does that square with the Government's repeated claims about the need to prevent the frustration and lack of purpose among the young?
My borough is faced with the staggering figure of 62 per cent. for youth unemployment. In 1983 only 10 per cent. of our school leavers found permanent jobs. The unemployed young people of my constituency will see these deductions as further evidence that the Government at worst do not care and at best do not understand. The Government live in a world of their own.
As Paul Lewis of Youth Aid stated:
The decision to make poor parents dependent on teenage children is an alarming new application of family policy. We are now moving towards a situation where the state, rather than recognising its responsibility to alleviate poverty, simply asks the poor to share their poverty with other members of their families. We do not just have the unemployment of the 1930s. We are getting the hated family means test too.
That is not an exaggeration. Even the leaked Social Security Advisory Committee report recognised that young low paid teenagers would need to be evicted from council houses if parents wished to keep some housing benefit because of the cuts.
Is that the sort of action that the Prime Minister told us last Sunday was so much in tune with how people feel — because of what they feel in their pockets? Increasingly, because of such proposals, if my constituents feel anything in their pockets, they have someone else's trousers on.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I share many of the anxieties that have been expressed on both sides of the House about the fact that so soon after the introduction of the scheme the Government have found it necessary to make changes. It is a matter of regret that that has been found necessary.
I am very conscious of the fact that local authorities, which have struggled to assimilate a vast scheme involving about 5 million assessments of individual circumstances, now find that the rules are being changed again, and that they now have to take on board new elements and make fresh calculations. I can see that that will cause them problems. However, we should not lose our sense of proportion. Some of the criticisms that have been made were quite uncalled for.
Some two years were spent in negotiation and close and detailed discussion with the local authorities before the scheme came into effect in November 1982. It came into effect in two phases — in November 1982 and April 1983—to suit the requests and requirements of the local authorities. In addition, the Department undertook to pay, and has been paying, all reasonable expenses incurred by the local authorities in engaging additional staff to deal with the extra work involved, in training staff, and in the provision and buying of computers for those local authorities which did not have them.
Everything possible was done to assist the local authorities, but one must accept that in such a gigantic scheme, with 5 million people involved, there are bound to be administrative mistakes. Those mistakes highlight themselves and are brought to our attention.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir H. Rossi: No, because time is short.
What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said is important. There has been a significant increase in the take-up of housing benefit. When we had two schemes running in parallel, we suspected that people were ignorant of their rights and, consequently, that many people entitled to benefit did not receive it. It must be a matter of gratification that the take-up of benefit has increased.
There are two consequences of that increase. First, local authorities may not have made administrative provision for the increase and therefore have run into difficulties. Secondly, the scheme's cost, which was originally pitched on a nil cost basis, has increased beyond expectation. If the figures that I have worked out are correct, the scheme is costing about £550 million more than anticipated. The Government are seeking ways in which to reduce that £550 million excess by about £270 million. I ask my right hon. Friend, when he is seeking to make an adjustment of that excess, to bear three points in mind. He was good enough to say that he would reconsider the scheme's detail.
First, I should like my right hon. Friend to ensure that no one whose income is below the needs allowance loses anything because of the changes. That must be an absolute prerequisite. Secondly, will he look at the minima that are being suggested? When a person is being paid small sums by, for example, the rent allowance, administrative costs can far outweigh the sums being paid out. Nevertheless, a loss of up to £1 a week in rent allowance is a bit too much to ask of our poorer families and the figure should be pitched much lower. When I had responsibility for this matter, I came to the conclusion that 20p a week was about the right figure below which it was not worth while making payment. Perhaps that was an incorrect judgment and we might have a higher level of 50p a week but 99p is too much to ask poor families to forgo.
Thirdly, I ask my right hon. Friend to take account of 16 and 17-year-olds. Given their place on the labour market, there is scarcely a family in the land in which a 16 or 17-year-old, even though he or she is bringing in some income, is not a burden, a liability and an expense. When the original scheme came in, I tried to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds did not affect family benefit levels. A change is now being proposed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will return to the original concept, look at the matter again and make a further change to his proposed changes to the scheme.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The housing benefit scheme is based on the philosophy of the workhouse—to keep benefits down to starvation level. That has not worried the Government but it has worried those who support the Government. The housing benefit scheme is so bad that the Government pile the whole measure onto the backs of the local authorities. The housing benefit cuts of about £230 million will be operated by local authorities which will be blamed for the increased rates that will follow. The Tory Government have caused considerable suffering to those entitled to housing benefit by forcing these schemes on local authority administrations to allow the DHSS to sack staff.
Conservative Members have asked questions about the local authorities that are to blame for bad operation of the

housing benefit scheme. The housing director responsible for administering the scheme in Hackney gave reasons for the difficulties in administration. He stated:
Early notification from the DHSS was that 20,000 cases would transfer to the authority. Accordingly, staff and accommodation were provided based on the numbers indicated. In the event 25,000 cases have already been transferred and an additional 500 new cases and 500 changes of circumstances or cessation are being notified each week. The staff have and are co-operating fully by working weekends and evenings but clearly were unable to cope. The problem has, in fact, been enhanced by the additional cases virtually all being in the private sector, the most difficult and time consuming to deal with.
Those are some of the difficulties arising from the scheme that is being forced upon local authorities such as Hackney.
The Secretary of State and other hon. Members will have noticed the early-day motions that were put on the Order Paper on 6 December 1983. One referred to the housing benefit of occupational pensioners and noted
that 1,330,000 occupational pensioners and others with additional income will be affected by the changes in housing benefit".
Another significant early-day motion followed on the Order Paper under the heading "Unclaimed Supplementary Benefit". A large number of hon. Members listed on the Order Paper pointed out that
the total amount of supplementary benefit unclaimed by persons entitled to it rose from £355 million in 1979 to £760 million in 1981, and that 1,390,000 people who were eligible for the benefit in the latter year failed to claim it at any one time.
The confusion caused by the housing benefit scheme drives people into the position of not knowing their rights. They are denied the right to the assistance that they require.
Hackney citizens, whom I represent, live in probably the most poverty-stricken borough in the country, but they will be further damaged by the housing benefit cuts. Already I have received numerous complaints about the existing scheme from a number of people who have been given notice to quit because their rents have not been paid. Some of them have endeavoured to pay their rents out of their meagre incomes.
Conservative Members have complained about the cost of the welfare state. Some say that we cannot afford the poor, but in the area that I represent the poor say that they cannot afford the rates. The poor are poor because the rich are rich; that is self-evident. Conservative Members ought to understand that people are poor because the wealth to which they are entitled has been taken from them by the wealthy. Those who have wealth crow about it and then attack the poor for not being able to face up to their responsibilities. That is why people are poor, and the more often that is said the better. People are rich only because wealth has been taken from others who are entitled to it.
Britain is a rich country, despite all the nonsense that has been said this afternoon. The Government have £130,000 million in their purse. What do they do with it? It is misspent. The problem lies in the way that the money is distributed and spent. The way in which the Government spend that money is the prime cause of inflation. I do not have time to explain that now, but if any Conservative Members are interested in my explaining it to them I shall show them that Government expenditure is the main cause of inflation.
This scheme and the Government's action have caused problems for the people of Hackney. The director of finance in the borough of Hackney states:


The problem is made much worse by the impact of increases in rents and rates. As you know, largely because of Government penalties Hackney is facing rate increases on the basis of current projected expenditure levels of between 42 per cent, and 61 per cent., assuming at the same time that rents to council tenants are increased by 75p. The table attached shows the impact on a range of individual tenants. Whilst the total outgoings of the average tenant not in receipt of benefit will increase by between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., those in receipt of benefit whose income is above the needs allowance will be facing increases of between 23 per cent. and 39 per cent. (and extrapolating from the examples even higher where income is higher).
There are no rich people in Hackney. He concludes:
it is Hackney Council who will be blamed, not the Government.
That is the Government tactic of passing the problem over to the local authorities.

Mr. Max Madden: The Government have become notorious for promising the people one thing and giving them the opposite. Their record is not so much cock-up after cock-up, as today's Daily Mirror suggests, as a catalogue of deception, betrayal and broken election promises. In successive general elections the people have been told that if they vote Tory their taxes will be cut, but we all know what has actually happened.
In the first year of the Tory Government the number of millionaires in this country increased by 1,200. The total tax paid by the top 1 per cent, decreased, while that paid by the bottom 25 per cent. rose. The people were asked to vote Tory to slash public expenditure, but the cosy fireside chat with Brian Walden on Sunday made it clear that the opposite had happened. Public expenditure now accounts for a higher proportion of the country's wealth than when the Conservatives came to office, due to the doubling of unemployment and the massive increases in military expenditure. The people, and especially the pensioners, were asked to vote Tory to protect their interests, but the Government's record on pensions has been deplorable and further attacks are being made on them through the proposed reductions in housing benefit.
I cite the case brought to the notice of a London Labour Member by an official of a housing trust which provides special sheltered accommodation for 1,000 tenants, 85 per cent. of whom are on housing benefit, including those living on the Oldfield estate at Chalk Farm. A similar situation applies for many other housing associations. This is the reality that seems to come as such a surprise to Conservative Members.
The official writes:
We have already experienced difficulties with the arrangements which came into effect last April when tenants' arrears went up three-fold, largely because of the changes in the administration of the payments on Housing Benefits. Many of our tenants became almost sick with worry at the arrears which built up through no fault of their own and we found that some of them would forgo a proper diet rather than be in arrears. Many experienced a sense of shame because of difficulties which were no responsibility of theirs.
The situation which we see arriving on the 1st April could be worse as not only are the Council's Housing Benefits section having to implement even more complicated formulae, but also a Housing Benefit cut of around £4 per week will in many instances form a substantial proportion of the money they would otherwise expend on food.
He concludes:
from the feedback which we have received to date we are left in no doubt that there is a mood of despair prevalent where the situation is understood. Old people in particular have no buffer with which to absorb a reduction in their income, and too much time to worry about where the next meal is coming from.

That is the reality of Britain today for many pensioners, and we invite Conservative Members to address themselves to it. Ministers have struggled to combat criticism of the proposed cuts by claiming that the cuts rest not on the worst off but on the better-off sections of the community. That is not true. The people being hit hardest are on 60 to 70 per cent. of average earnings.
Ministers have also sought to argue that the increase in housing benefit is so enormous that it must be tackled, but that increase does not mean that the scheme is more generous. It reflects the enormous increase in unemployment and the substantial sums previously treated as supplementary benefit, which now come within the housing benefit scheme. The increased expenditure on standard benefit also reflects the enormous increase in council rents and local authority rates as a direct result of Government policies — first, the coercion of council tenants into buying their homes and, secondly, the substantial cuts in rate support grant.
This mean, nasty plan to cut housing benefit has brought a tide of opposition. The Secretary of State today gave the impression that there were some supporters of the proposed cuts, but I understand that 130 organisations sent in critical reactions to the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee, which in turn submitted a highly critical report to the Government. It said that pensioners would lose the cash equivalent of two weeks retirement pension and stated:
We join all those who have made representations to us in deploring these cuts, which we believe will have an unduly harsh effect on many individuals".
The local authorities strongly oppose the cuts. A senior official of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities said:
This confirms the appalling picture we believed existed as a result of these cuts. They must be withdrawn.
We have heard a great deal about the iniquities of housing benefit going to people whom Conservative Members regard as well off, but we hear very little about the public subsidies to people on substantially higher incomes by way of mortgage interest relief. Those subsidies have increased by 50 per cent. in the past 10 years and 500 per cent. in the past 20 years.
We have rightly heard a great deal today about the effect of the cuts on the poverty trap in creating marginal tax rates of 80 per cent. The cuts are an attack on poor people, including many pensioners. They intensify and deepen the poverty trap. They deter people from saving to provide additional pensions. They increase adminsitrative burdens and costs for local authorities. We urge the Minister of State to go further than the Secretary of State. We urge the Government to withdraw the cuts completely and to undertake a comprehensive review of the housing benefit scheme. We are not in the business of redistributing poverty among the poor. If the Government think that they can buy off the Opposition by helping pensioners at the expense of the unemployed, they should know that any such attempt will be rigorously resisted by Labour Members.
I urge Conservative Members, whether they be "Thatcher's no men" or the 100 who signed early-day motion 318, to join us in opposing these mean and nasty cuts which hit the worst-off sections of our community. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who has had a busy week, told Sir Robin Day yesterday on "The World At One":


There are many of us in the party who recognise it always has in the past been a party in which people had their say and influenced events … The responsibility lies on us to continue that tradition. We are not going to be hacks and lackeys and just pushed here and pushed there.
We are going to express our views and we will act accordingly in the House of Commons, and that is our duty to our party, to our constituents and to the people in the country as a whole".
I invite the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, "Thatcher's no men" and other Conservative Members who see the reality of the cuts and their effect on many of the poorest sections of the community, to join us in opposing the Government's proposals and warning the Government that if they bring back a botched-up scheme in a few days' time which merely shifts the burdens without reducing them we shall continue vigorously to oppose them.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The last time I rose to reply to a debate on housing benefits was on the Consolidated Fund Bill at 6.14 in the morning, and there were not as many hon. Members present then as there are today. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) were present, and thus we had a trinity at least upon our evening service on that occasion.
Reference has been made to the effect that there is no sense of heart, compassion or feeling on this side of the House. Let us look at the record of the Government on social security. Social security expenditure now is 25 per cent. up in real terms in four and a half years. Even allowing for increased numbers on unemployment and supplementary benefit and 600,000 more pensioners than there were in 1979, almost every benefit is higher in real terms than it was when we came into office. One-parent benefit is the highest ever, and child benefit is at its peak. On the handicapped, we are spending 21 per cent. more in real terms now than when we came in 1979. With reference to the pensioners, as my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, between November 1978 and November 1983 the pension has been increased by 74·6 per cent. and the retail price index has gone up by 68·8 per cent. In other words, the purchasing power of the pension is higher than when we came into office.
Reference was also made to heating. Heating additions in 1978–79 were £124 million. Heating additions in 1983–84 will be £350 million, £100 million more in real terms than when we came into office. It was this Government that made any person on supplementary benefit at the age of 70 automatically eligible for a heating allowance. That was done not by the co-called compassion lobby opposite, but by this Government out of the real money with which they were dealing.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister says the Government have been generous in the past. Does he not accept that £230 million is a flea bite in the social security budget? This saving is not worth the candle. I put it to him as objectively as I can, leaving aside the emotion. Has he not learnt the lesson that the system is so complicated that he cannot make changes in it any more without having ramifications elsewhere that cannot be estimated easily?

Dr. Boyson: The contention of the hon. Member that £230 million is a flea bite will ensure that the Liberals do not get a flea bite from this side of the House after the next general election.
The expenditure in 1984–85, after allowing for the changes on housing benefits, is £1 billion more on social security than was in last year's public expenditure White Paper, so no hon. Member can say that no expenditure is being made by this side of the House.
On the question of the housing benefits with which we are dealing, we looked at housing benefits because they go further up the income scale than any other means tested benefits. We have ensured that most supplementary pensioners are not affected at all.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mr. Rossi)—a concern felt, I know, by other of my hon. Friends—to those below the needs allowance. That is one of the other matters we shall look at. As my right hon. Friend said, the position of those on supplementary benefits is clear.
People on supplementary benefits are not affected. Only the changes to the high rents and the minima will affect people below the needs allowance. Nobody can say that when we came in we said, "Let's take money from those with the least money." We said, "Who needs most help?" We took the money away from those higher up when considering these benefits.
Standard benefits, as my right hon. Friend said, have gone up 140 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years. The number of local authority tenants receiving standard benefits has gone up from 1 million to 1·4 million in five years. There has been a continuous increase.
One third of households in the country are now receiving housing benefit. Approximately 38 or 39 per cent. of the population of the country are now living in households receiving household benefits. One hon. Member from this side of the House, and my hon. Friend in his intervention, referred to the fact that the present cost of housing benefits on average is £4 in tax on every household in the country.
The expenditure on housing benefits is running ahead of the original estimate for 1983–84, which was £3·3 billion. In the light of the November 1983 uprating, we had to take supplementary provision to cover an estimated expenditure of £3·5 billion, and it is likely that we shall have to take further provision next month because of increases beyond that.
My right hon. Friend said that we will look at everything that has been said and that includes all the suggestions put forward on housing benefits. My right hon. Friend and I have read the Social Security Advisory Committee report, and have looked at it carefully. Hon Members will have the assistance of our comments on it when it is published at the time the regulations are laid.
It is as well to remind the House that, after I met the local authority leaders last October, we announced our intention to bring in about 25 variations to make the scheme easier to carry out, variations that have cost us between £3 million and £4 million, but which we are glad to do at the request of the local authorities. Whatever has been said in the House today about what local authorities have done on housing benefits, I believe that the vast majority of local authorities have done their best to implement the scheme. The information coming in—and I met the local authorities only three weeks ago—is that it is now largely turning over. Indeed, the Association


of Metropolitan Authorities said that the housing benefit scheme has recently moved into a more stable position and that local authorities are now generally beginning to cope with the new scheme.
We will take note of what has been said in the debate, and we will consider what has been said by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. We read their material yesterday. One must say that most of that material covers the first three months of last year when the new system was just beginning.
My right hon. Friend said in his speech:
I shall examine carefully the arguments put to me about the cumulative effects upon particular households. Before laying the regulations I shall want to be sure that we have made full allowance for this aspect. If it seems that the proposed changes might affect some households too harshly, especially in the shorter term, I shall be ready to consider modifying them.
We must keep expenditure under control or inflation will destroy the savings of occupational pensioners and the value of their non-indexed pensions, as happened under the last Labour Government, to the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but with little or no concern to hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 330.

Division No. 130]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Guy
Douglas, Dick


Barren, Kevin
Dubs, Alfred


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Beggs, Roy
Eadie, Alex


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellis, Raymond


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Forrester, John


Campbell, Ian
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cartwright, John
Fry, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, W. E.


Clarke, Thomas
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Robert
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Cowans, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Craigen, J. M.
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunningham, Dr John
Howells, Geraint


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hoyle, Douglas





Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pendry, Tom


Janner, Hon Greville
Pike, Peter


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


John, Brynmor
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Prescott, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles
Redmond, M.


Kilfedder, James A.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Robinson, G. (Coventy NW)


Lamond, James
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ryman, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCrea, Rev William
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McCusker, Harold
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampfn NE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


McGuire, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Maginnis, Ken
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Martin, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Maxton, John
Torney, Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, William
Wareing, Robert


Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, James


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Gordon


Nellist, David
Winnick, David


Nicholson, J.
Woodall, Alec


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. John McWilliam and


Park, George
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Tim


Ashby, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bruinvels, Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Sir Antony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Budgen, Nick


Batiste, Spencer
Bulmer, Esmond


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Bendall, Vivian
Butcher, John


Benyon, William
Butler, Hon Adam


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda






Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hill, James


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hirst, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hooson, Tom


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Michael


Corrie, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Critchley, Julian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Denshore
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Robert
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Durant, Tony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Evennett, David
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Knox, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lamont, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Fletcher, Alexander
Latham, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Franks, Cecil
Lightbown, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Galley, Roy
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lyell, Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrindle, Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maclean, David John.


Grant, Sir Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Greenway, Harry
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gregory, Conal
McQuarrie, Albert


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Major, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malins, Humfrey


Ground, Patrick
Malone, Gerald


Grylls, Michael
Maples, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Marlow, Antony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mates, Michael


Hannam, John
Maude, Francis


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Harris, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Harvey, Robert
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Mellor, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayes, J.
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayward, Robert
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger





Monro, Sir Hector
Speller, Tony


Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Moore, John
Spencer, D.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Squire, Robin


Mudd, David
Stanley, John


Murphy, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


Norris, Steven
Stradling Thomas, J.


Onslow, Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Philip
Tapsell, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Terlezki, Stefan


Parris, Matthew
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Malcolm


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Powley, John
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Prior, Rt Hon James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Proctor, K. Harvey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raffan, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walters, Dennis


Roe, Mrs Marion
Ward, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watson, John


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Raymond


Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Woodcock, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Speed, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that even after the changes in housing benefits announced as a result of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, expenditure on social security benefits, including housing benefits, will continue to rise in real terms in 1984–85; considers that the greatest help Her Majesty's Government can


give occupational pensioners and all social security beneficiaries is to conquer inflation; and congratulates the Government on the substantial progress made in bringing inflation down to the lowest levels for 15 years.

Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
The House will be aware that, resulting from the Local Government Act 1972, existing legislation in Nottinghamshire will cease to have effect by the end of 1986.
The Bill was deposited in November 1981 and subjected to scrutiny by Committees in another place. It was debated in the House in October 1982 and carried over to the following Session and read a Second time in April 1983. Further procedures carried the Bill through to the present Session. It was considered by a Select Committee of this House in July and allowed with amendments.
The Nottinghamshire county council is controlled by the party of Her Majesty's Opposition, but, as the Bill has the support of the Conservative minority on the shire council, it is appropriate that the Bill, as amended, is presented by the Conservative party. To the best of my knowledge it has the full bi-party support of the shire members of the House. I therefore request with confidence that the Bill be considered and that we proceed to Third Reading.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I oppose consideration at this stage, as I have opposed all the proceedings on the Bill, because of the council's insistence on including controversial provisons which should be the subject of national legislation.
The House is aware of the so-called "jumbo" Bills which have been promoted by a series of county councils. In promoting such Bills, the object of county councils was supposedly to consolidate or re-arrange provisions which existed until 1974 and to transfer those powers to the new local authorities, which have existed since 1974.
In some ways it is rather odd that it has taken almost 10 years since the boundaries were changed for the Bills to be introduced. Hon. Members will recall that they started life as jumbo Bills because a series of national provisions were included in local Acts. Because of the slow progress of the Bills through the House, the Government introduced miscellaneous powers legislation for local government and many clauses were removed. Since then the Bills have been in a slimmer form, or have been slimmed down as they have progressed through the two Houses.
Although the promoter has withdrawn many clauses because they were overtaken by the recent local government miscellaneous provisons legislation, other provisions have been removed as a result of petitions. The Bill contains a variety of measures which its promoter has decided to include which do not involve local democracy or decision-making and amount to national provisions. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the procession clause, which is clause 6. Other clauses deal with massage parlours and other matters which stretch across the country and cannot be said to be Nottinghamshire issues.
Rather than have a proliferation of local Acts, with different powers and provisions, it would be more logical for the Government to introduce national legislation. It is unfortunate that the promoter has not been prepared to narrow the Bill to cover local matters involving Nottinghamshire. The council has included clauses stretching far wider than local Nottinghamshire issues. It is more logical that national legislation should be enacted on the wider issues, thereby enabling those who move from one area to another to be assured that the law will be the same.
When dealing with processions, some counties have decided that no provisions are required, but in other counties different periods of notice must be given. The Bill includes provisions on street touting and hawking as well as provisions in some respects to restrict the sale of newspapers. Political motivations have been involved in restricting the sale of problematical newspapers. However, after pressure in Committee, the promoter agreed to remove that provision.
County Bills can be justified only when they include purely local matters. Many local matters are dealt with in the Bill, and there is justification for a county Bill that deals with cemeteries, bridges, and other specific matters. I see no logic in dealing on a piecemeal basis with public order, massage parlours, touting in the street, taking photographs or other such issues.
The promoter could have saved itself much time by removing from the Bill the topics which should be dealt with on a national basis. Hon. Members will recall that the Bill commenced two years ago, and a carry-over motion was put into effect the summer before last to enable the Bill to be debated further.
I said on that occasion that the Bill would make far better progress if the promoter dropped the procession clause. At that time the Bill was moving through the House in tandem with the Hampshire Bill. The promoters of the Hampshire Bill accepted that processions should not be dealt with in a local Bill and they agreed to drop the clause. As a result, the Hampshire Bill became law almost 12 months ago. However, Nottinghamshire insisted that it wanted to insert a local provision for what was basically a national issue, and it pressed on with the procession clause. As a result, we are having to take up the time of the House once more to discuss the issue. It would have been possible to come to an agreement at least 12 months earlier.
The Government have issued a Green Paper which will enable discussion to take place on processions. Proposals have been made for national legislation, and over the years there have been clear signs that at some stage the Government will have to introduce such legislation. What is the point of having a local provision if the Government are considering national legislation? If the Government do not produce national legislation, how can Nottinghamshire justify inserting in its Bill a local provision which is at variance with what would appear to be the Government's thinking? The promoter should be prepared to give a clear undertaking that it will remove clause 6 and reconsider the other provisions that amount to national legislation—for example, street hawking, touting and massage parlours.
The promoter must show good reasons why such provisions should be included in a local Bill as opposed to national legislation. It is undesirable that people should

find, when they move from one part of the country to another, that different local provisions apply. If local provisions are to be justified, it is necessary to show that Nottinghamshire, for example, is unique. The proposed legislation of Hampshire and Nottinghamshire started to proceed at exactly the same pace through the House. There was a time when most "national" clauses were in both Bills. As the Hampshire Bill proceeded, it was decided to drop several of its national provisions. As a result, it made considerably quicker progress through the House than the Nottinghamshire Bill.
I do not suppose that any Conservative Members who are present to represent Nottinghamshire can show ways in which Nottinghamshire can claim uniqueness. I doubt whether they can show that there are problems in Nottinghamshire that are different from those of Kent, for example. They may be able to argue that there are problems in Nottinghamshire that are different from those in Cornwall, although I doubt that very much. Several similar clauses were put into a Cornwall Bill, but they did not appear in the corresponding Devon Bill.
Gradually, there was a realisation that there had to be some logic and that in a Nottinghamshire Bill only matters particular and peculiar to Nottinghamshire could be included within it. There is nothing in the procession clause, for example, that relates to specific problems that are experienced by Nottinghamshire. I shall be interested to hear Conservative Members explain why they feel that there are problems that require to be dealt with in local legislation. Bearing in mind the type and size of the towns and cities within the county, there are few problems within it which do not exist in other similar areas, which have decided they do not need similar clauses in their Bills.

Mr. Dave Nellist: My hon. Friend is suggesting that Nottinghamshire is not faced with specific problems. Several authorities in the general area of Nottinghamshire have removed procession clauses from their Bills — for example, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Derbyshire. It seems that the majority of authorities in the general area do not need procession clauses.

Mr. Bennett: I am suggesting that the promoter must show at this stage that there are specific and peculiar problems in Nottinghamshire which require specific and peculiar legislation for that area as opposed to the whole of the country. I submit that the council has been unable to establish that case in respect of the general clauses throughout the whole of the proceedings, and I do not think that there is any evidence that it wants to do so. Common clauses were produced in consultation with the Government from the jumbo Bill and jumbo clauses. Those clauses were included in all the jumbo Bills throughout the country in a common form, and that seemed to be a contradiction in terms. How can common clauses feature in local Bills? They cease to have any local relevance when that occurs.
After a long period of discussion in the House, it appeared that the Government realised that the Bills would not be enacted within a reasonable time if they included the common clauses. As a result they produced local government miscellaneous provisions legislation, which incorporated many of the common clauses. That took the form of national legislation. When that happened, most of the local Bills began to make rather more rapid progress.


That happened in Committee, and not necessarily on the Floor of the House. The local authorities were saved a considerable amount of expenditure in terms of printing, meeting objectors and Committee proceedings. In addition, authorities which were represented by counsel in discussions with the Home Office on common clauses had their legal costs reduced. If it was necessary and logical to remove so many clauses which were considered to constitute potential national legislation, why is it necessary to continue to enact local powers in favour of national provisions?
It is for the promoter to tell us why part IV needs to be in its present specific form. Why does part III need to take its present form? What are the particular and peculiar problems of Nottinghamshire that make those parts necessary? It appears that powers have been taken historically to enable urgent repairs to be undertaken in respect of water, gas and electricity supplies, but why are they necessary in local Bills? There is an obvious public need for repairs to water systems and gas and electricity apparatus. These are not problems that are peculiar to Nottinghamshire, for they apply throughout the country. For some reason the public health section remains in the general Bill instead of being dealt with in national legislation.
I hope that Conservative Members will be able to tell us why it is necessary to implement national areas of legislation in a local Bill. When we have heard their statements of explanation we can move on to consider the amendments.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that we move on to consider Third Reading. I do so because the Bill has been around for a long time.
I shall address myself to the principle of the Bill and not to its contents. On Tuesday, the Opposition were whipped by one of the strongest three-line Whips that we have experienced for a long time. It was imposed on the rate-capping Bill. We heard various speeches, including a notable speech from the Conservative Benches about setting the people free. It has been argued that local government knows what is best for its own area. If we believed that on Tuesday, I should like to know what happened yesterday. I am amazed at the number of Members of Parliament representing Nottinghamshire who have served in local government. Some hon. Members are still members of the county council. I should like to apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) who cannot be here because he is in the Committee considering the Trade Union Bill. Before he came to the House, he was a distinguished member of the county council. Nearly all the Members who represent Nottinghamshire used to be on the county council or borough or district councils.
There are eight Labour party members and one Conservative from my area, Mansfield, on the county council. Six of the eight Labour members are miners or retired miners, one used to be an official of the National and Local Government Officers Association, and the other is a retired teacher. Among the eight are the chairman and vice-chairman of the police committee and the vice-chairman of the county council, Mr. Bill Morris, soon to be the leader of the council, I think. I challenge anyone

to tell me of someone who knows more about Mansfield or Nottinghamshire than Bill Morris. What he does not know about the area is not worth knowing.
Then there is Dennis Pettitt, the leader of the county council and a Labour party member. I should like to quote part of a letter from him;
I have to advise you that the Full Labour Group here have debated this subject on four occasions and each time has come to the conclusion that the '24 hour clause' should be included in the bill. It may well be that the councils … take a different view but I would remind you that local government is about local decision making and we are suffering enough already from centralism by the present Government. When I get harangued by people in the Labour Party to conform to the London norm, or any body elses norm, then I cannot help but feel apprehension about the direction in which my Party is going. The very essence of our argument with Patrick Jenkin is that local people should be left to make their own decisions in the light of their own circumstances and not to have to kow-tow to either parliamentarians or Whitehall mandarins.
I concur with many of those sentiments because unfortunately many people think that the world ends at Watford. It does not. There is a Labour party beyond Watford, thank goodness.
One of the four discussions referred to in the letter took place when I met my county councillors. I asked them to go back to the county council and ensure that the Bill was absolutely necessary. I can understand my colleagues who say that they do not agree with it. I may not agree wilh it. However, it is not my decision but that of the county council. The county council has made its decision; it thinks that this Bill is necessary for Nottinghamshire. Who are we to disagree? Nottinghamshire county council is made up predominantly of our members, most of them from an industrial background. I respect their judgment for Nottinghamshire, and I think that we should allow them to get on with the Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) did in respect of some of the issues that were raised during the course of the 1974–79 Labour Government, but there were occasions when we whipped up a considerable amount of support in the Labour part) to try to prevent the inclusion of similar clauses in regard to processions and demonstrations. We are not here to try to tell Nottinghamshire county council not to do local things. Our main purpose is to ask the council to do something that is against the Tory Government.
Perhaps someone can refresh my memory, but during the period of the 1974–79 Labour Government on all the occasions when these issues were debated I cannot recall one when a Labour Member suggested that we were acting unusually and not giving the local people a chance to make their own decisions because we were trying to prevent the inclusion of procession clauses in legislation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) could remind me of any occasion when that happened. I thought that it was all one-way traffic on this side of the House. We did not always get what we wanted, but I thought that all Labour Members were speaking with the same voice.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I assure my hon. Friend that I cannot recall anyone on this side of the House speaking in favour of such a clause. If my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, he will be giving a list of all


the local Labour party organisations in Nottinghamshire who not only objected to the clause but took the trouble to petition against it.

Mr. Skinner: That bears out what I thought. The National Council for Civil Liberties group in the House, spearheaded by my hon. Friend, has made an effort on this over the years. In regard to the party itself as distinct from the people on the local authority, there has never been a resolution other than to call upon Labour Members of Parliament to get rid of these clauses. Our attention has never been drawn to any branch of the Labour party saying that it was good to have clauses on street processions or that because the provisons helped the police it was anxious to have them.
I have never had a chance to talk to the leader of the group to which my right hon. Friend referred. I do not know whether I could change his mind but I should like to try. I should like to have a word with the rest of the group and tell them that strenuous efforts have been made by some of my hon. Friends to get local authorities to remove these clauses and that in many cases they have succeeded. Only on a few occasions has the issue gone against us. Naturally many Tory authorities want to include these provisions.
It is not a local versus a national issue. At the beginning this was probably wanted by the officers of Nottinghamshire county council. It has not adopted something unique to Nottingham. It has just accepted what the Tory Government wanted it to do.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the hon. Member not accept that these powers exist already and that it is not a question of introducing new Tory powers?

Mr. Skinner: The point is that after 1974, when reorganisation took place, much consolidation had to be effected. That is why all this legislation was introduced. We are only trying to use the opportunity that is available to us to prevent this being carried through in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the power has been in existence in the city of Nottingham since 1929?

Mr. Skinner: We are arguing not that point but the fact that the Bill presents us with an opportunity, even at this late stage, to try to stop the clause being included. With many other local authorities, starting with the west midlands, with which we kicked off during the Labour Government of 1974–79, we have been successful in getting such clauses taken out. The National Council for Civil Liberties has been at the forefront in assisting Labour council members, who were on certain occasions by far the majority, to achieve that. That has been a success story.
I hope that the Nottinghamshire county council will, if it has the opportunity—I suppose that the Tories have hustled the vote in tonight to make sure that they get this thing through—[HON. MEMBERS Oh."] We know that these hon. Members are not in the Chamber, but they are in the woodwork. We know that the Government on any occasion always keep more than 100 of their Members in the House to ensure that a closure motion can be moved and carried through successfully. There may only be a few

hon. Members in the Chamber but there will be many Tory Ministers who are on call, perhaps just outside the Palace in their flats in Westminster within earshot of the Division bells who will come and vote accordingly.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that tonight we are dealing with a measure presented by a Labour authority, with all-party support, which makes his statement rather hollow?

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Councillor Skinner, a member of the Nottinghamshire county council, also supports the Bill?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I presume that he means my brother, but although he is a member of the Labour group in the Nottinghamshire county council, he has been one of those, albeit a minority until now, arguing to get this provision deleted. One of the reasons why they have had several meetings on the matter is that from time to time Councillor Skinner has been one of the persons responsible for sparking off a further debate, because he was not happy about the provision being included. The sad thing is that until now he has not been able to get a majority inside the Labour group to support him. One or two of his colleagues agree with him.
Having worked in local government many years ago, I know what happens when these Bills are drawn up. They are drawn up not by the elected representatives but by the officers and the people who work for them down here, and made presentable. We know exactly what happens. It would be ludicrous to think that somebody who was working in the pits or a factory four or five days a week would be able to draw up such a Bill. It is presented to the councillors by the officers and in some cases the Bill may initially be seen only by a few people on a particular committee. Unless one is exceptionally aware of these matters one does not notice them. That is why some of us have been trying to make sure that the Nottinghamshire county council Labour group councillors are made aware of the circumstances. Councillor Skinner has been made aware of the circumstances, and that is why he and a majority of the group feel that this clause should be amended.
That does not mean that we in Parliament have to accept a Labour decision by the Nottinghamshire county council. I am prepared to argue the case—perhaps I am wrong—that if we had a survey among Labour party members in Nottinghamshire council about street processions we should almost certainly get a majority against inclusion of the clause. The tragedy is that many of them do not know exactly what has taken place. The press do not pick these things up because they are more concerned about trivial matters. Labour party activists will suddenly realise that a Bill has been sent down here by Nottinghamshire county council, drawn up by the officers, which is unacceptable to them. That is another reason why it would be a good idea to delay the Bill, so that, as we have sparked off some interest among the Labour party members, they could make their colleagues on the council aware of their feelings on this matter.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Earlier this evening I had hoped that I would persuade some Conservative Members to explain to me what is unique about Nottinghamshire as opposed to some of the surrounding areas, such as Derbyshire, and why it is necessary to have some of the


clauses in a Nottinghamshire Bill, particularly the procession clause, when they are not in a Derbyshire Bill. My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of this area, and perhaps he will explain why one can move from peaceful Derbyshire into the more difficult area of Nottinghamshire where a different set of laws are necessary?

Mr. Skinner: Looking at the characteristics of the counties, it could be argued that there are few remarkable differences. It is true that Derbyshire with its peak district is very hilly and mountainous—as far as we have mountains in the British Isles—but Nottinghamshire is relatively flat. However, there are many things that bind them together. If we remove ourselves from the geographical difference, there has always been the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coalfield. That is spread over the boundary and although Nottinghamshire has more pits than Derbyshire—probably by about two to one—there are still many miners in both counties and especially in the areas that are more thickly populated. The parts where most of the population is resident, apart from Derby itself, are still part of the mining area. Right along the border between the industrialised areas of Nottinghamshire and those areas of Derbyshire excluding the West and High Peak divisions, there are many similar characteristics, and the same is true of the population. There is not much difference in total population.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend explain why miners who are in dispute in Derbyshire and who want to go to another pit to persuade other people to take part in the same dispute are able to do so in Derbyshire without giving any notice, but as soon as they get to the frontier between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire they have to give notice before going on to a pit in Nottinghamshire, if the clause goes through? Surely this is an artificial boundary?

Mr. Skinner: It is an artificial boundary, and it will be a strange state of affairs for a national union engaged in a struggle with Mr. MacGregor to have to adopt different tactics because some of them work in Derbyshire and live in Nottinghamshire while others do the opposite. I would relish my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish giving me the opportunity to give further and differing examples for as long as he can, but it would be inappropriate to imagine that miners would get terribly excited about this clause. Perhaps that is one of the things that prompted the Labour group to say, "Our miners in Nottinghamshire will not take any notice anyway." I can imagine someone in the Labour group saying that when it got through. He would say, "Well, what does it really mean?" The reply would be, "Well, it means that they have to give notice," to which the reply would be, "Us? Notice?" That is the sort of thing that may have allowed the decision to get through more easily. I do not think that the miners would get too worked up about the issue.
However, the issue does not apply only to miners. It applies to everyone. It applies to people who are concerned about civil liberties. There are many issues about which spontaneous demonstrations are necessary to alert the rest of the population to them. It is true that they can have the opposite effect, but the point of being able to hold demonstrations in a free country is that people who are not fully aware of the circumstances of a case can be made aware of them.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Apart from spontaneous demonstrations, there are also national demonstrations which take place throughout the country. My hon. Friend will remember, for example, the people's march for jobs. Some of the people who marched to London came from Scotland. How would they have known, at any given point, whether they were passing through a local authority where they had to give notice? What happened when the people's march for jobs came through such an area?

Mr. Skinner: I suppose that it had to give notice. That march was arranged several weeks in advance. The itinerary for such marches has to be drawn cp a considerable time beforehand, so I do not imagine that that would present much difficulty. We do not argue that all demonstrations will be affected. We are not naive enough to think that. The point is that on the many occasions when demonstrations are necessary this provision will be a hindrance.
Let me give an example. There was the Cuba incident in 1962. I remember the tremendous excitement at that time. Within hours—certainly, not more than two or three days—what seemed to be a relatively trivial matter suddenly became one which alerted the whole nation. People watched television for the latest snippets of news as the embargo that had been placed around Cuba looked as though it would take us to Armageddon. As a result, spontaneous demonstrations took place up and down the country, and in many instances they would have run foul of this clause. There have been other similar demonstrations in recent times. Many of them take place in London, especially when something happens in another country whose nationals in this country want to take part in a demonstration here.
Then there are industrial disputes. Let us forget the pits for a moment. There may be an industrial dispute such as the one that took place in Nottingham not long ago involving—I think—the Nottingham Evening Post. The managing director—Bailey Forman, I think his name was—took it upon himself to act in a way that was not dissimilar to the way Eddie Shah has been acting in Stockport. As a result there were spontaneous demonstrations. Some people might have called them pickets, and on occasion they did look like pickets, but it was a demonstration, too.
We do not want to upset unduly the people of Nottingham—certainly not our Labour colleagues—but we hold a different view on the matter. We believe that we have the people inside the Labour party on our side. We can use the precedents when the Labour Government were in power, when we often had 200 to 300 Labour Members in the Chamber because we needed to get legislation through and because of the lack of a majority—almost—we mustered substantial votes to prevent clauses of this nature being accepted.

Mr. John Butterfill: I should have thought that it might be necessary to give at least 24 hours' notice to one's own supporters to organise anything worthy of being called a demonstration or procession. Surely it is not possible to get more than half a dozen people together within a few hours. To make it worthy of being called a procession, and of being noticed in the streets, one would need at least 24 hours to get the supporters together. So surely it is not unreasonable for similar notice to be given to the authority?

Mr. Skinner: That is not quite true. Not too long ago—three months, at the outside—I was in the Chamber with many other Labour Members when someone said, "You should go to Trafalgar square, because there is a demonstration going on." I reckon to know about demonstrations—usually a few days in advance. The police do not need to tell me. I keep my eyes and ears open. I said, "I have not heard about that one." It was a spontaneous demonstration. I went up Whitehall, and it was not long before I saw them with their candles and crosses. By and large, they were people from the church, objecting to cruise missiles. As I got nearer to Trafalgar square, I saw thousands of them. What astonished me and many other Labour Members was how this group of people had managed to occupy Trafalgar square in such a short time.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman says that the march was spontaneous, yet those thousands of people all had candles in their pockets.

Mr. Skinner: That is the most amazing part about it. I asked one of the organisers, "How long has this been going on?"—or words to that effect—and he said, "We have done it all on the telephone in the past 24 hours."

Mr. Bob Clay: It might help my hon. Friend if I remind him that, if he is talking about the demonstration that I think he is, it was held on the occasion of the cruise missiles being brought into this country, so if the demonstrators had had any more notice than the hon. Member is suggesting it would have been a most amazing leak.

Mr. Skinner: As I say, it was not inThe Guardian. I had read the papers.
Without any question, there were 20 or 30 Labour Members of Parliament in Trafalgar square. There were none from the Government Benches and none of the Social Democrats or the Liberals, those great defenders of freedom who are missing tonight. This is the sort of issue that they will be telling their constituents about no doubt. Those taking part in the demonstration were carrying candles and crosses and somehow or other, as a result of their telephone calls—[Interruption.] I am being absolutely serious. This is no laughing matter. These people did not regard it as a laughing matter either. Many of them were from the clergy or representing the church and they were very serious in wanting to demonstrate against cruise missiles coming into this country. It was a powerful performance, one that it would have done a lot of people in this place a lot of good to have witnessed. The demonstrators sat down at the top of Whitehall, demonstrating in that peaceful way and singing songs. I am not saying that it is my usual way of demonstrating because I was brought up in the pits, but they put on a splendid performance and one which could not have taken place in many areas where this particular clause exists, as I understand it.
That is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has been so persistent. He was not a victim of the boundary changes. He actually has a seat with a much better majority. He has managed to persuade others to come in on this campaign on so many occasions and has argued the cause of freedom.
Someone on the Government side of the House mentioned freedom not so long ago. The Prime Minister

continually tells us about freedom and so do the other members of her Cabinet. They tell us that the last two elections have been about releasing the freedoms of the individual, and yet here we are, being restricted once again, in 1984, by means of another measure in which the state is going to be able to use its power to stop spontaneous demonstrations of this kind. How on earth can these two things be reconciled? We hear about the freedom and liberty of the individual yet every so often we see on the Order Paper another of these county council Bills or something of the sort that includes this requirement to give prior notice of processions and demonstrations.
Somebody mentioned Derbyshire. Yes, we managed to get it out of the Bill for Derbyshire. Certain negotiations had to take place. As with the Nottinghamshire county council, the Labour group on the Derbyshire council had a massive majority in the 1981 elections. It was a splendid year. It was one of those years that some people described as "a bad year for Labour". But we can all remember the way in which Labour managed to win control in large areas of the country, picking up county councils here, there and everywhere, Although Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire had been Labour-controlled before, we secured massive majorities. So is it not strange that here we are in the next county, Derbyshire, managing to have the clause deleted? The Labour party has a majority of something like 57 to 27 and I think it is about the same in Nottinghamshire. There is not a gnat's whisker between them.
They have somehow or other been beguiled—this is what I think has happened—by the officers—the chief constable probably—into thinking that this does not really matter and that they are only doing what everyone else has done, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish knows only too well, as a result of his and others' efforts—the National Council for Civil Liberties among others—we have managed to have it removed on so many occasions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I hesitate to say this, but although I am very pleased to hear my hon. Friend developing this argument about the procession clause, I remind him at this stage that we are still on the question whether this Bill should be considered. We have to be a little careful not to go too far into the debate that will follow on the actual amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we have to be careful to keep to the question of consideration. That is why I was seeking to catch his eye.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been promoted. He has been given a job on the Front Bench and I think that he is making a bid for the future. Here am I, giving him a hand out, chucking a shovelful on for him and, just as I am beginning to develop the argument in a cogent fashion, making comparisons between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and discussing the question of delay, as it applies to them both, and further consideration, he, in this esoteric manner, starts acting like—dare I say it?—a member of the Chairmen's panel. There are about 20 people on it and there is no doubt—I do not want to diverge from this Bill—that, from the way in which he has managed to look at the fine print of these Bills over the past few years, he is probably suited for that job. However, I am not going to put that mantle on him at the present time.
I really came into this debate because over the years we have been anxious for our people to understand that it is


not a good idea for a Labour authority to include these measures in such Bills when most of the authorities, though not all, have been persuaded to delete them. The question of further consideration is important because I would dearly love to be able to get this message across to the Labour group so that it can have a fresh look at the matter. That is why I do not want to develop any aggro of any kind tonight. It is a question of trying to build a few bridges in order to ensure that in the end they do not act in a local, parochial fashion.
I am not suggesting that to the leader of the Nottinghamshire county council group. We are saying to him that there are occasions, when one is in a national party and acting on behalf of one's class, when class issues supersede all parochial boundaries. That is why we would like to see the matter further considered so that there is another opportunity to look at it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given us this opportunity, which we would not have had without his blocking motion, to try to get the Nottinghamshire county council to reconsider.
With those few words, taking into account the fact that my hon. Friend has some further arguments to develop on the clauses and amendments, I am loth but prepared to sit down.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I join my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in asking that the Bill should be further considered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that this was essentially a local decision of the Nottinghamshire county council, a Labour-controlled authority, and that we should respect such local decisions. From my limited experience of some 15 months as a member of a county council, I agree that there is a great deal of weight in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that in a number of cases such proposals arise from the initiative of officers of authorities who seek to tidy up or extend legislation or introduce new legislation which is perhaps not fully considered at the time. Having served on the Committee which considered this Bill for two days in July, I know that that was the case because one of the clauses that we debated could not, in my estimation, have issued from a political decision of the Labour group.

Mr. Concannon: If my hon. Friend reads my speech tomorrow, he will see that I do not necessarily agree with the county council. Having debated the principle all day on Tuesday, we should not do so again today. About three quarters of my constituents are miners, and some of them are long-serving councillors. To suggest that those councils will be beguiled by their officers is to tell county councils in my area something that I would not dream of saying.

Mr. Nellist: To answer in the fraternal spirit in which my right hon. Friend's advice was given, I would not impute such motives to Labour members of Nottinghamshire county council. I should just like to mention some of the organisations which have objected to parts of the Bill, to demonstrate that the balance of the arguments in the area merits further consideration. Those bodies include the Nottinghamshire Association of Trade Union Councils, Nottingham district trades council,

Worksop district trades council, the National Union of Public Employees social services branch in Nottingham, the NUPE divisional council in Nottingham, the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff No. 1 branch, Nottingham and the regional executive of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. They are just some of the aggregate trade union bodies which take representation from union organisations of miners and others—trades councils frequently take representations from hundreds of trade union organisations.
Other objectors to parts of the Bill include the local Labour parties in Beeston, Park and Lenton, Newark and district trades council, Stapleford and Beeston trades council, Mansfield district trades council, Retford and district trades council, the Nottinghamshire administrative, professional and clerical branch of NUPE and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs at Nottingham university. I have given only half of the list. It shows that many organisations in the area are not yet convinced of the need for the Bill. That is why it should not be considered further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned the issue of processions, which is just one of the arguments. In Committee it was found that more than 100 councils enjoy the power of clauses which are similar to several in the Bill. Some of them were adopted as long ago as the late 19th century. They have been re-enacted as and when necessary until as recently as two years ago. That being so, a minority of local authorities enjoy such powers, as there are about 400 in all. The Bill will therefore have national repercussions as it attempts to establish provisions which would make a mockery of county boundaries. For example, a person who moved five yards from Derbyshire, west Yorkshire or south Yorkshire into Nottinghamshire would be subjected to a different set of rules.
Much of what the Bill provides is unnecessary. There is no strength in the argument that, because powers have always existed, they should remain. That would lead to messy legislation. Like any ordinary working person, I have difficulty in understanding most Acts of Parliament. There is no point in retaining clauses which cannot be shown to fulfil a need. The Committee heard several examples of provisions that have been on local statute books since the early 1920s. When questioned, counsel for the council was unable to convince us that it was neessary for such provisions to remain in force as it could not be proved that they were used frequently. The provision relating to processions was just one example. The burden of proof of the necessity of such provisions lies with Conservative Members.
The Committee also heard that 80 per cent. of people obey provisions relating to processions without knowing it as to organise a demonstration or march it is essential to notify supporters of that cause well in advance. The Committee asked those who were appealing on behalf of Nottinghamshire county council what happened in the 20 per cent. of cases when notice was not given. They were unable to tell us how many prosecutions had been made, as the provision had not been used. I therefore see no need for a provision which could be used to block the exercise of basic freedoms such as the right of assembly and the right of demonstration. If Conservative Members are unable to demonstrate cases when such provisions should


remain in force, I see no reason why the House could agree to their being retained simply because they have always existed.

Mr. Peter Pike: I, too, served on the Committee. I understand the case advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), but I believe that the Bill should be considered further and not proceed now, although I realise that on Tuesday we were asking for local freedom and that local government be allowed to make its own decisions. Having served on a local council for many years, I fully support and understand my right hon. Friend's point of view.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There is a fundamental problem with the argument about this being a local matter. If the Bill were being considered in Nottingham, that council would have the right to change it. However, Nottinghamshire county council is asking for national legislation which will apply locally. It will therefore not have the opportunity to repeal the Bill if it finds that the measure works badly. The council will have to return it to the House for us to alter it.

Mr. Pike: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, one of the principal features of Tuesday's debate was that we discussed changing a democratic system and the standing of local government within our democracy. Although I regret that the rate-capping Bill received a Second Reading, because of its constitutional nature I regard it as important enough to be debated in Committee on the Floor of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, if the clause is passed it cannot be changed at local level thereafter, but will have to be returned to the parliamentary system and amended at some future stage. Such a decision by a local authority is wrong if it affects civil liberties, as this one does. People have a democratic right to demonstrate and to march. That has been well established and recognised for many years, and it would be wrong to take any steps under local byelaws which would infringe citizens' rights to protest. Hon. Members should think carefully before passing legislation that removes such rights.
In Committee hon. Members were not overwhelmingly convinced by Nottingham county council of the need for this clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said, many petitioners supported the case against the inclusion of the clause, and a weak case was made for retaining it. I accept that it is a matter of opinion and that those who support the retention of the clause would take the view opposite to mine.
The Committee divided 2–2 on that clause and on the Chairman's casting vote it was retained. That means that a clause that affects people's right to demonstrate—a basic democratic right—was carried on a casting vote. If the Committee had had a different Chairman, it is likely that a different decision would have been reached.
By chance, another clause was picked out which infringes people's rights to sell newspapers in certain parts of the county. A unanimous decision was reached on that matter, which the promoter accepted. The council amended the Bill having taken note of that unanimous decision. It is important that byelaws which make basic

changes and affect people's fundamental rights should not be passed in this way, but are included in national legislation.

Mr. John Butterfill: In my constituency, the Bill as drafted, which allows for 24 hours' notice, would be regarded as an unfortunate precedent. My constituents feel that 72 hours are only reasonable for major demonstrations, simply because of the workload imposed on the police force and the inconvenience which the demonstration may cause to citizens. Therefore, even 24 hours' notice may often be inadequate.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on a good speech, on the diligent way in which he has watched successive private Bills come forward, on the diligent homework that he has done on them, on the way in which he has alerted hon. Members to the procession laws, and on his success in preventing Bills from containing procession clauses.
I was surprised that when the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) introduced the Bill he did not mention that contentious issue. We shall debate the procession clauses in detail on the amendment. I am surprised that he did not mention it, because it might have helped the debate along. The only Member who supports this clause is my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It cannot have been a surprise to hon. Members to learn that it would be the key issue in the debate.

Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend said that I supported this contentious issue. I was careful to say that it was not my opinion. My opinion does not matter. Nottinghamshire county council has considered this matter and decided upon it four times. I am being consistent. If the Labour party chooses to say that local councils are the best judges, I shall be as consistent on Thursday as I was on Tuesday.

Mr. Dubs: I understand what my right hon. Friend says. If I did not make it clear I apologise to him, but what I meant to say was that he was supporting the Bill because it was the decision of a local authority, not because he supported the provision. The main point of principle is whether the House should challenge the decision of a local authority as embodied in a clause in such a Bill.
I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South did not refer to the point that has been the subject of all the speeches in the debate so far, given that the promoter of the Bill produced a helpful statement so that the House could understand the basis of the Bill. Most of that statement dealt with the point that has been the subject of the debate.
If an hon. Member presents a private Bill on behalf of a local authority, he should cover, if only briefly, the main point which the promoter, in its wisdom, expected would be our concern. The House would expect the hon. Member presenting the Bill to justify it, rather than simply say, "Let us leave it to the good sense of the local authority to decide what is best in that area."
Conservative Members look distinctly gloomy tonight, and we have had only two short speeches from them—[Interruption.] My comments seem to have cheered them


up a little. There is no sense in sitting in the House looking gloomy and not making a contribution to the debate. The rest of us can be persuaded only by their arguments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said that there was a case for leaving decisions to the local authority. He believes—as do many Labour Members—that that was a main part of the argument on the Rates Bill, which the House debated passionately on Tues day evening. That is fair as far as it goes, but there is a difference between the existing powers of a local authority over the quality of its services and expenditure being challenged by Government legislation, and the fact that local authorities will no longer be able to do what they have done until now.
The position has become anomalous. There have been attempts in many local authority Bills to include a provision which should be part of national legislation and be the responsibility of the Home Office. The Government made the case for that. In April 1980 they introduced a Green Paper entitled "Review of the Public Order Act 1936, and related legislation", which in part deals with this matter.
My main argument for saying that we should not proceed further now with the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill is that the Government have not only introduced a Green Paper but have said that there will soon be a White Paper, followed by legislation. If the Government believe that the matter is so important that it must go through all those stages, it is odd, to say the least, that the House should give the go-ahead to local government Bills which seek to pre-empt the decision for which the Government are going through a fairly extensive process of consultatiion.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If the Government are right to take on a responsibility for public order legislation—I agree that they are right, although I do not agree with many of the points in the Green Paper—they cannot also say, "While we are waiting, let us go ahead and give these powers to the authorities. Why not? Some authorities have had the powers for some time in any case, and some of the powers have been consolidated. If some authorities have powers and others do not, and there are differences of opinion between different parts of the country, what does it matter?"

Mr. Buttertill: We all accept that the Government have responsibilities in the matter, but local circumstances may vary considerably. For instance, there is an influx into Bournemouth every summer of an additional 500,000 people. That imposes a considerable load on the police force. It may be necessary for special local circumstances to be reflected in a local Act.

Mr. Dubs: That may be the case, although I am reluctant to accept the argument in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed it. In any case, such a conclusion should be the outcome of consultations by the Government on public order legislation, rather than a way in which the House pre-empts such action by the Government. If enough people made representations to the Government that there should be different public order legislation in different parts of the country, the Government would wish to take that into account. It may well be that the White Paper will endorse the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there are significant differences between local authorities which would justify

different approaches. The Government may eventually decide to leave the matter to the local authorities. However, such a state of affairs should be the result of a deliberate decision by the Government rather than the result of measures passed by the House while waiting for the Government to announce further proposals.

Mr. Nellist: It may be true that half a million people go to Bournemouth for their holidays, but I doubt whether they all go on the same day. In any case, it would be more helpful if Conservative Members would apply their diligence, with facts and figures, to finding out why this extra legislation is needed in Nottingham. We are not discussing Bournemouth.

Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point. If the approach to public order legislation is to be different in different parts of the country, the onus is on local people to make the case for the differences. l am not satisfied that an influx of visitors into a seaside resort would of itself justify a different approach to public order legislation, even though it may put a special burden on the police.
As my hon. Friend said, we are discussing Nottinghamshire. No case has been made for making Nottinghamshire different from some surrounding counties. The sponsor or the promoter of the Bill should have explained why Nottinghamshire requires this provision. That case has not been made. The House should therefore not proceed with the Bill until the Government come forward with further proposals for public order legislation and we have a chance to consider them in some detail.
The points made in the Green Paper can properly be debated on amendment No. 1. However, I should like to make one more general proposition. It arises from the report on public order by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I have served on the Home Affairs Select Committee, but I was not a member of it when it produced the report, and I do not agree with many of the conclusions in the report. However, the Select Committee made the interesting point that a requirement to give notice before a march in itself provides some sort of legal approval for the march. Under our law there is at the moment no formal right to march, but a requirement to seek permission for a march constitutes a sort of consent to the march. Although in various local authority Bills, including the Nottinghamshire one, there is no formal endorsement of a right to march, the implication must be there.
Many marches are contentious. The previous Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw as he now is, sometimes banned marches in the London area, and he was probably right to do so. However, if a local authority told a body such as the National Front to give notice of a march, and the police therefore knew that the march was to take place, that would give the march some credibility in the eyes of the law.
Conservative Members are shaking their heads. They may not agree with that interpretation, but it is a possible one. I shall quote from paragraph 36 of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee:
Although under British law there is no statutory right of public assembly or procession, common law, and a variety of statutes, recognise that marches are lawful, provided they do not interfere with the use of the highway by others, or constitute a nuisance to occupiers of property adjoining the highways, or violate a statute regulating the use of the highway. Moreover, the United Kingdom is a signatory of the European Convention on


Human Rights, Article 11 of which guarantees the right of peaceful assembly. The NCCL pressed upon us the need for a statutory right to march, assemble and demonstrate. No case has been made out for such a wide measure, but we realise that a statutory notice requirement would in effect recognise a limited right to march. In other words, legal standing is confirmed for a march by the requirement and acceptance of notice.
That is a point of principle and it should be discussed in the context of a national approach to public order rather than be slipped in by way of a local authority Bill. This is one of a succession of local authority Bills which represent an attempt either to consolidate or to extend the law of public order before the Government have had a chance to put forward proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked a few moments ago, why should Derbyshire not need such a provision if Nottinghamshire does?
We are talking about democratic rights and the freedoms of this country. Unless there is proper and adequate debate of any measure which limits our freedoms, the House is doing the country a disservice. In discussing local authority Bills, many hon. Members have expressed concern. We do not think that such legislation is appropriate. If we had been discussing a new public order Act the Chamber would have been full for much of the debate and many hon. Members would have wished to speak. Because we are doing it on the side, the matter will not receive much public attention and we may establish some dangerous precedents without proper parliamentary debate.
In support of that contention I refer once more to the statement by the Bill's promoter. The council justifies the procession clause by mentioning other local authorities which have a similar provision. However, the more local authorities that have such clauses in their Bills, the easier it is for subsequent promoters to say, "They have almost all got it. Why do we not all have it?" When the Government introduce legislation they will be forced—if they are open-minded about the issue and decide against that course — to contradict the whole pattern of parliamentary debate and the whole method of approving legislation. Therefore, they will be placed in a difficult position.
We are talking, not about something trivial, but about a criminal offence and a fine of ·200. I should have thought that it was dangerous in principle to say that what is all right on one side of the county boundary is not all right on the other side of it. Our criminal law requires rather more respect than that. The normal local authority byelaws may differ from one part of the country to another, but that is all right because they deal with local situations which do not have exact parallels in other areas. However, that is not the case with processions. Processions are processions, and the same considerations will apply when people wish to march or demonstrate, particularly if it is to be a spontaneous event.
I conclude my remarks by mentioning something that Lord Denning said in the case of Kent v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which was heard in the Court of Appeal. I believe that the report was published on 15 May 1981. The report states:
Before the Act there was the common law. His Lordship said in Hubbard v. Pitt ([1976] QB 142,178) that like the right of free speech, the right to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern were rights which it was in the public interest that individuals should possess and exercise so long as no wrongful

act was done; it was often the only way by which grievances could be brought to the knowledge of those in authority. The right 'to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern' was an undoubted right of Englishmen.
Something quite important was said there, and I should be fearful if the House sought to limit that right.
I regret that the Bill's sponsor and Nottinghamshire county council did not decide to drop the clause. If they had done so we would not have had to try to establish, in a long debate, such difficulties of principle. There would not have been a problem and Conservative Members would not have looked so gloomy. They would have been home by now, because we would not have needed this debate.
In the face of known parliamentary opposition, it is regrettable that a local authority should have decided on such a course instead of waiting for the Government to put forward their proposals and legislation and see where it stood on such an important matter. Our democratic rights and freedoms are involved, and they should not be dismissed lightly, even if hon. Members want to go home and are fed up with debating the issue. The issue is important to the people of this country and we should not dismiss it lightly.

Question put, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 42.

Division No. 131]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lang, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Lightbown, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lilley, Peter


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
McCrea, Rev William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Macfarlane, Neil


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Major, John


Coombs, Simon
Malins, Humfrey


Cope, John
Malone, Gerald


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol


Couchman, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Moore, John


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Evennett, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Farr, John
Murphy, Christopher


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Neubert, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Newton, Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Norris, Steven


Fox, Marcus
Paisley, Rev Ian


Freeman, Roger
Parris, Matthew


Gale, Roger
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pollock, Alexander


Gow, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gummer, John Selwyn
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rost, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Silvester, Fred


Hayes, J.
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Haynes, Frank
Spence, John


Hayward, Robert
Spencer, D.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stern, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hirst, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Holt, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.






Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Wardle, C (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Michael Knowles


Winterton, Mrs Ann



NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Barnett, Guy
Lamond, James


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Leighton, Ronald


Bermingham, Gerald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Thomas
Mikardo, Ian


Clay, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Nellist, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Prescott, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Rogers, Allan


Dewar, Donald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Douglas, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Alfred
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Eadie, Alex
Snape, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Fatchett, Derek
Weetch, Ken


Fisher, Mark
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, W. W, (Central Fife)



Harman, Ms Harriet
Tellers for the Noes:


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Peter Pike and


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Tony Lloyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Clause 6

NOTICE OF STREET PROCESSIONS

Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 3, leave out clause 6.
Clause 6 aims to make it a criminal offence to organise or take part in a march that has not previously been notified to the police. It is important when hon. Members consider this amendment that they look at its background and what the clause wishes to do. It is not an exaggeration to say that the clause is about matters that are of great importance for democracy — the right to demonstrate, freedom of expression and the right to express views in public on the streets. A recognition of the importance of the rights and freedoms of people to demonstrate should be a starting point for any discussion and any debate of this nature.
Parliament, our newspapers and the Government are quick to criticise other countries that limit the freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly of their citizens. We are quick to accuse others, yet we should apply the same standards to ourselves. If we applied those same high standards that recognise the importance of civil rights and liberties, the Bill would be amended by deleting this clause. We should apply the same scrutiny to ourselves that we are ready to apply to others.
Demonstrations are important. Many people say that demonstrations are important for people in the Soviet Union because they cannot vote and do not have the same democratic processes as we have, and therefore we will uphold their right to demonstrate. We are in a democracy, and therefore it is said that it is not as important for British

people to demonstrate as much as people elsewhere andthat in this country democracy is served merely by people voting in a general election.
It is important for people to be able to express their views other than by simply marking an X on the ir ballot cards once every few years. Suppose they want to demonstrate, express their views or protest about a local issue that will never be of electoral or national importance or even of sufficient significance to be a local issue at a local election. It might nevertheless be extremely important to the people concerned. For example, people might be worried about a dangerous school crossing. If they cannot express their protest through the ballot box they should be able freely to do so by assembling and making the strength of their feelings clear to other members of the public.
9 pm
If a matter of concern arises after a general election, people cannot be expected to wait three or four years to make their protest. The matter may be of far more immediate importance. Plans to build a major road through a village, for example, might well be implemented in the meantime. People must be able to get together and demonstrate their views publicly.
It has also been suggested that people do not need to express their views by getting together, marching or demonstrating because of the position of the media nowadays. It is suggested that such forms of protest were useful in the days when the only form of communication was through pamphlets but now that there is television and radio in virtually every home these archaic rights to protest are no longer necessary. Of course, radio and television programmes can be received in every home, but not everyone has the same access to the media. Thus, although people can receive the views of those who have such access they cannot spread their own views to others in the same way.
As a result of local protests building up to national demonstrations by large numbers of ordinary people, certain issues not previously regarded as important in elections have found their way not only into the national media but into the manifestos of political parties. Nuclear disarmament is a good example. But for the opportunity for local groups of peace campaigners to get together and demonstrate their views, whoever would have expected that that issue would become the focus of so much media attention and so much debate in the House? The House of Commons itself needs to know the electors' views not just once in a few years through the ballot box but by encouraging the growth of movements at grass roots level. The only means of expression open to many such groups is that of peaceful protest.
Some people take the view that demonstrations are a problem. They talk as though the disruption of traffic were of greater consequence than the civil liberties involved. They talk about the problems of clearing up the streets afterwards. They refer to the cost of policing as though it were a public order problem rather than a matter of rights and freedoms. It is extremely worrying when the police regard the right of peaceful assembly and protest as a problem. They should be working with Parliament to uphold democratic rights rather than sponsoring local authorities to seek greater powers for them by creating further criminal offences which would crack down on civil rights.
Some people even talk about the rights of demonstrators as opposed to those of the community as though demonstrators were somehow illegitimate, abnormal or peculiar people completely outside the community.

Mr. Butterfill: They frequently are.

Ms. Harman: Even policemen's wives have been known to take to the streets to demonstrate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) would regard them as part of the community. Nurses, too, have been demonstrating recently about cuts in the Health Service and previously about the atrocious level of Health Service pay. They are certainly part of the community —rather more so, I suggest, than the hon. Gentleman who is still muttering dissent. It is completely false to juxtapose the rights of demonstrators and those of the community.
As for the use of the streets, peaceful protest is as valid a use for our streets as window-shopping or standing in bus queues. Who has ordained that the purpose of our streets is to enable people to hurry from one place to another but not to use the public highways to express their views? The juxtaposition of demonstrators' rights and the rights of the community is utterly unhelpful and negative.
In considering the amendment to delete the clause, it should be remembered that we are talking about the opportunity to exercise political power. Hon. Members might say that members of the stock exchange and members of the IMF do not take to our streets, troubling us all by disrupting the traffic and dropping litter when they demonstrate. They have a great deal of political power so they do not need to take to the streets when they are faced with economic policies they do not agree with, because they can exercise their powers through other channels. Unfortunately, they operate in different and much more powerful ways. When the military chiefs are concerned about cuts in defence spending, we do not see them taking to the streets, worried about the country's defence strategy, but again they do not need to because they are immensely powerful already. We must be careful, therefore, that we do not take away from people who otherwise have not very much political power the opportunity to exercise what power they can by organising, assembling and marching through the streets to make known their views to other people. Curbs on demonstrations will undoubtedly affect those who are otherwise politically the most weak.
As to the brigade of people who believe that demonstrations are a bad thing and somehow improper or undesirable, I emphasise that the overwhelming majority of demonstrations are entirely peaceful and pass off without any incident or disruption. This is in stark contrast to football matches, for example, where there is regular disruption, but I do not hear from Members of the House an argument that we should somehow hedge round the organisation of football matches with criminal offences.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy about people gathering on the streets, disrupting traffic and dropping litter. When an event such as the jubilee or the royal wedding takes place, thousands of people flood the streets. It is necessary to erect signs well in advance saying that it will not be possible to get from A to B in London because there will be so many people demonstrating their support for the event that is taking place. They are every

bit as much demonstrators as peace demonstrators. It is merely that they are demonstrating about something different from going from A to B. going shopping or waiting for a bus.
I regret having to move the deletion of the clause from the Bill in one respect because I know that some people in Nottinghamshire have a strong feeling that it is no business of a Member of Parliament who does not represent Nottinghamshire to have a view about a matter included in the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill. However, I believe that this is not just a local matter. The question of civil rights, civil liberties and how the criminal law relates to the right to demonstrate is not simply a matter of local interest. It should be the responsibility of the House to decide the limits and boundaries of freedom of assembly and of expression. Therefore, even people who believe that there should be the criminal offence of failing to give notice of a demonstration in my view should accept that the proper place for such a clause—although I believe that there should not be such a clause—is in a national Bill laid before, and considered by, the whole House. It is the proper business of the House and not merely a local question.
It is also nonsense to have a code of criminal law that differs from one area to another of the country. The criminal law should be uniform across the country. It brings the law into disrepute to have as an offence in one area a matter that, for no apparent reason based on any local circumstances, is not a criminal offence in another area. I therefore believe that it is wrong to include this sort of power about the criminal law in a local Bill.
The clause would infringe treaties that have been ratified by the United Kingdom, including the European Convention on Human Rights, which purports to protect freedom of expression and assembly. We were one of the earliest signatories to that convention.
The clause would make it a criminal offence to march, however peacefully, without having given prior notice to the police. People could be guilty of an offence even if there was a small demonstration with no mishap. They might not even be aware of such a law. After all, it would be a local law and the demonstrators might come from a neighbouring county and not be aware of it.
To make such demonstrations a criminal offence would, in my view, breach the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, I believe that it would breach the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which we are a signatory. We are quick to sign grand-sounding documents about the protection of rights and to point to other countries which we do not believe uphold human rights. But when it comes to matters nearer home we find excuses for ourselves, and for the sake of expediency, national or local, we forget our fundamental principles and create criminal offences where they are not needed.
Although the clause would inhibit perfectly peaceful demonstrations, it is unnecessary because most demonstrations are peaceful. The few demonstrations that cause the police real problems are not those about which the police are ignorant: they know that they will happen and the route they will take. How, therefore, can the supporters of the Bill claim that it would prevent acts of public disorder? Prior notification does not present a problem. Many marches take place of which the police are not aware and no problem is caused because they pass off


peacefully. Marches which cause problems are generally known about in advance by the police. It is clear, therefore, that prior notification has not been a problem.
Not only is the clause unnecessary and undesirable, but it would be harmful because while we have signed various conventions showing how anxious we are to protect our freedoms, we have no statutory right to demonstrate. Freedom of expression in Britain is extremely tenuous. As we have no statutory right to demonstrate, it is utterly wrong to create a completely unnecessary offence.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady accept that we have a common law right to do so? We do not need all our rights to be enshrined in statutes. The common law has been good enough for most of us for most of the time since this country has been a democracy.

Ms. Harman: No judge has stated in court that we have such a common law right. I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any judgment stating that there is a common law right to demonstrate. Nor am I aware of any such statement that is considered to be as binding as a statute. Indeed, we should make demonstrating a statutory right. The burden of proof rests on those who would restrict demonstrations.
I do not believe that there are special circumstances in Nottinghamshire that require a law of this kind. I do not come from Nottinghamshire and I regret having to stray on to such local territory, but the Bill contains provisions with national implications, and therefore I cannot avoid referring to Nottinghamshire.
A patchwork of local enactments exists in the area for different notices to be given to the police. According to the information given to me by the proposers of the Bill, no prosecutions have taken place. Is that because everyone in that area who knows about the byelaws goes in fear and trembling of them, knowing that they must not be breached? Do the people of Nottinghamshire behave differently from people in areas where there is no requirement to give notice? That is nonsense. Such byelaws have fallen into disuse. Prosecutions have not taken place as the problem is not one of prior notification. If it were, the people who took part would be prosecuted before their feet could touch the ground.
9.15 pm
There is a great deal of local opposition to the Bill, which found expression in the petition that was brought to the House asking for the clause to be deleted. To show that the clause is unnecessary, I wish to call in aid Lord Scarman, who said, when considering specifically the issue of demonstrations after the Red Lion square incident, that there is no need for this type of clause. He said that 80 per cent. of demonstrations are already notified to the police. He also said that effective demonstrations by their very nature need publicity. Therefore, the police are likely to know about them and notification is just a formality which would make no difference in practice.

Mr. Ottaway: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that Lord Scarman changed his mind when he discussed the Brixton disorders. He recommended at paragraph 7.49 of his report the inclusion of a
requirement of advance notice of a procession to the police

Ms. Harman: I am well aware of what Lord Scarman said in his report. That is one recommendation among several, with which I disagree. When he made that

proposal in the Brixton report, his mind was not focused properly on the issue. He was examining riots at that time, but when dealing with the Red Lion square incident he had been specifically focusing his mind on demonstrations. His decision on demonstrations was correct but his thinking was wrong on riots, disturbances and unplanned demonstrations. His thinking was much clearer when he said that 80 per cent. of demonstrations were notified, that effective demonstrations needed publicity and that the requirement would create insuperable difficulties for urgent demonstrations.
I wish to refer to spontaneous demonstrations. Let us imagine a terrible incident occurring in a factory where some machinery is extremely dangerous and the workers wish to walk out in protest. Are they to be told that they cannot demonstrate as the notice period is 24 hours? Let us imagine that parents are worried about a child being killed on an unsafe road opposite a school. Are they to be told that they cannot demonstrate on the following morning when they next get together because the police must be given 24 hours notice? To organise a demonstration would take longer because the police must be given 24 hours notice of the route, which means that consultation must take place.
The 24-hour notice rule is an inhibition. It could be considered to be an imposed cooling-off period. We have no right to impose such a cooling-off period on spontaneous demonstrations unless overwhelming evidence exists that such action is necessary in the interest of public order. I do not think that such evidence exists.
Some hon. Members may ask about the exemption clause. It might be argued after a spontaneous demonstration that it was not reasonably practical to notify the police and that the demonstrators were not criminals.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. Is she aware that since 1951 it has been necessary in Nottinghamshire to give 36 hours' notice before a procession takes place, and that in the city of Nottingham it has been necessary to give 24 hours' notice since 1929? It can hardly be said that a new provision is being introduced. The hon. Lady says that rights and liberties in Nottinghamshire are being restricted, but we have got by up there for over 50 years now.

Ms. Harman: I believe that the provisions have fallen into disuse. I am sure that the average police officer in Nottingham would not be aware of the different notice requirements in the different areas. In any event, there have been no prosecutions. Perhaps the citizens of Nottinghamshire—

Mr. Ottaway: Once again, the hon. Lady is completely wrong. It is the memory of the deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire that not one application to hold a march has been refused.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point entirely, but he has made an interesting intervention which leads me to another extended exposition. The hon. Gentleman talked about applications for permission to march. If that is what he thinks the clause is about, that is significant and sinister.
The clause is concerned about the giving of notification. In practice, it will be regarded as a provision that requires application to be made for permission to march. It will be construed as a requirement for


application to be made to the police for permission to exercise a democractic right. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the central issue by suggesting that it will be seen as a requirement for permission to be sought to exercise the freedom of assembly. Is it being suggested that we can exercise our democratic rights only at the convenience of the police? There have been no prosecutions under the existing legislation and byelaws, but that has not been because everyone has been in fear and trembling of them, afraid to besmirch himself and frightened of having a criminal record. I have no doubt that the people of Nottinghamshire have not been aware of the patchwork of byelaws in their area and, as a matter of formality, custom and courtesy, have given notice to the police.

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Lady has talked about the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland happens to be a part. She has stressed that there should be uniformity of requirements throughout the country. Will she address herself to the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have to give five days' notice prior to holding a demonstration, under provisions introduced by a Labour Administration?

Ms. Harman: I think that five days' notice is completely wrong. There should be no notice requirement. People should be able spontaneously to demonstrate. It is not the demonstration which the police do not know about which causes the problem. Spontaneity of demonstration has no correlation with the difficulties of the police in controlling demonstrations. The two issues are completely separate. We are talking about inserting a fresh, new and updated requirement that people must apply for permission to demonstrate.
Someone might say, "One can always argue that it was not reasonably practicable," but I maintain that the exemption does not wash. In my view, it does not mitigate the clause. When a policeman discovers that a person wishes to organise a demonstration, he will say, "You cannot do it. You must give 24 hours' notice of the demonstration and of the route. You must read the code of guidance and comply with the requirements contained within it in respect, for example, of stewards." He will not say, "You will have to do that unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so, in which case you can go ahead." That will not happen.
The applicant will not be in a position suddenly to summon legal advice. He will be told: "I am sorry, but you cannot have a demonstration for 24 hours. Perhaps you had better make an appointment with the relevant police officer at the local station the day after tomorrow. If you do so, we can start to discuss the matter from that point." People will not know about the small print and the exemption. Even if someone does know about it, will he risk committing a criminal offence on the basis that he might have something good to say in court, when he is taken before it? Who would commit a criminal offence on the basis that he might have a good defence? Most demonstrators are law-abiding and do not want to tangle with the criminal law. It will be no comfort to them to be told, "Do not worry. You have a good defence. If you get legal aid and if you manage to get someone who can argue well for you you will probably get off." That is nonsense. The defence of exemption is no good.
I should like to give an example of a place where notice was required. There is an updated notice provision in the west midlands because unfortunately that authority did not drop the clause and in that instance the House did not agree to delete the clause, as I hope hon. Members will do in this case. This is a concrete example of the inhibition of a peaceful protest. I shall read from a statement by a Civil Service trade union organiser, Edward Berrow. The House will remember that the Civil Service trade unions began a dispute with the Government in March 1981. He said that on 10 April he discovered for the first time that Lord Soames, obviously a very important symbolic figure in the dispute,
being Lord President of the Council who is responsible for Civil Service pay and conditions was visiting the University of Birmingham for a private lunch and to hold a press conference".
The Civil Service employees in the area wanted to take the opportunity spontaneously of demonstrating to show their anger at the Government's continuing refusal to negotiate with the unions over the 1981 pay claim. He said:
I then realised that because of the West Midlands Act it would not be possible legally to organise a March because we could not give the police notice. (I was not sure whether it was 3 days or 5 days notice)".
In fact, he was due the next day. Mr. Berrow said:
I therefore decided that though we would have wanted a march, as it gets much greater public attention than a stationary rally, that if we did so we would have put ourselves in danger of being prosecuted.
Instead, we asked members to make their own way to the university where we had a demonstration which though attended by 20 members, attracted very little public attention to our dispute.
He believes that if they could have had a march they would have been better able to express the strength of local feeling. He said:
I am now told that there is an exemption for those who fail to give 3 days notice if 'it is not reasonably practicable' but the reality of the situation in practice is that trade union organisers, who need to organise peaceful protest by their members at very short notice, do not have time either to look up the fine print of legislation or to go and visit lawyers.
Most lawyers' offices do not have copies of local Acts, so even if someone went to a local lawyer he probably would not find out the notification requirement. Mr. Berrow said:
Even if we had known what the law was, we would not have been able to risk going ahead with a march unless we had been able to consult a lawyer about whether notice in the particular circumstances of our march was not 'reasonably practicable' because Lord Soames' visit had been arranged some time before —it is just that we did not discover until immediately before the visit.
That shows that the "not reasonably practicable" exemption will not give people confidence that in practice their right to demonstrate spontaneously is not inhibited.
The notice requirement will make an impact on the policing of demonstrations. There is far too much policing, especially of peaceful demonstrations. Two things are wrong. When there is strain on the police force in terms of catching burglars and dealing with other criminal offences about which people are increasingly worried it is wrong that they should spend time policing peaceful demonstrations. It has almost become a reflex police practice to send to a demonstration twice as many policemen as they estimate that there will be demonstrators.
As well as being the wrong use of police resources, this is undesirable. It gives the people on the demonstration the feeling that they are doing something that is quasi-criminal and on which it requires many police to keep their eye. The


more notification that we have and the more palaver surrounding a demonstration, the more it will institutionalise that idea.

Mr. Butterfill: Would the hon. Lady think the same about a National Front demonstration?

Ms. Harman: No notice should be required for any demonstration. I am bitterly opposed to the racial hatred that the National Front demonstrations cause, and it should be prosecuted for causing it. Having notice of National Front demonstrations is not a problem for the police, who almost invariably know about them but cannot control the thuggery on the streets.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that these things can occur on the other side of the political spectrum, not extending as far as the National Front. There was a typical example of this last year in Chesterfield. We should bear in mind that Derbyshire is not the county council that wishes this clause to be inserted. However, Chesterfield is in Derbyshire. The council decided to rededicate the fountain in the market square and call it the peace fountain because it had just found that there were some people coming down from Scotland on a peace march from a Polaris station, so this was a spontaneous decision. On the Friday there was a Right-wing demonstration in Chesterfield by the local Tories on the council and a few of their allies. They proceeded spontaneously to heckle the vicar, who was rededicating the Eastwood fountain as the peace fountain, and the mayor of Chesterfield. Such events can happen across the political spectrum, and that is worth taking into account in view of what is likely to happen in Chesterfield soon. Tory Members should remember that their friends heckled the vicar and mayor of Chesterfield.

Ms. Harman: That is an important point. It is clear that the Conservative Members do not think that notification will help to deal with the thuggery of the National Front. They want everybody to apply to the police for permission to demonstrate. I should not like the police to be able, directly and on a day-to-day basis at local level, to make political decisions. If one has to make decisions at a local police station about who is allowed to march in one's area from one day to the next, one will be making political decisions. Notification will be interpreted as permission to march.

Mr. Concannon: I wish to make the point, in case it had happened to slip my hon. Friend's mind, that this Bill comes from a Labour-controlled council, which has gone through it meticulously four times. I asked it to go through it once. I may not believe in what it is doing, but it is its right to do it. It is worth pointing out that this is a Labour-controlled council and the biggest percentage of that Labour majority is of miners. They know what they are doing in Nottinghamshire. For the life of me, I cannot see why we in the House dictate to people in Nottinghamshire who have been elected by the Nottinghamshire people. I have been sitting here wondering where I live, and I live in the middle of Nottinghamshire. Some of the things that my hon. Friend has said are not applicable to Nottinghamshire.
I go on marches regularly and my town has been used for marches on umpteen occasions. Indeed, we have had the IRA. The IRA came to see me in my little town of

Mansfield, and there were no problems whatever. The only problem was that I had to make sure that we had enough police there to protect its members from the citizens of Mansfield.
So I hope that my hon. Friend will point out that this proposal comes not from Conservatives but from my local elected Labour councillors, most of whom are hardworking miners, housewives, and so on. It is worth bearing that fact in mind.

Ms. Harman: I have considered that fact, and I said at the outset, in moving the amendment, that I very much regretted having to comment on what is happening in Nottinghamshire. However, I backed that up by saying that it is not a local issue. The question of the criminal law as it applies to civil liberties and rights, should not be treated as a local issue.
Perhaps I can shed further light on the matter by referring to the statement that was made on behalf of the promoters in support of the Consideration of the Bill, which has been issued. The first paragraph said:
The promotion to the present stage of this Bill has not been accomplished without considerable expense to the local authorities".
Clearly it is a terrible situation, and we are causing more expense by saying that we cannot stomach clause 6. However, we have to say that we are not prepared to accept it. If the promoters want to save money, as well as doing the right thing, they should drop the clause, and then we could all facilitate the passage of the Bill. This point has been put to the promoters on a number of occasions.
There is another matter in the statement that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. Paragraph 5 says:
Clause 6 of the Bill is in accordance with the proposals made in the Green Paper on the review of the Public Order Act 1936, published in 1980. This clause is not in accordance with the proposals in that Green Paper".
Incidentally, I disagree with most of that Green Paper as well, but I happen to know that it does not say that there should be local requirements to give notice. It specifically says that there should not be a patchwork of local clauses. It says that there should be a national clause and that Parliament should consider it as a national question. Therefore, the fact of promoters of a local Bill praying in aid a Government Green Paper which says that there should be a national clause is something of a sleight of hand, in my opinion, and my eyebrows raised when I read it.
My eyebrows raised further when I got to the next sentence, commenting on the fifth report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1979–80. It says that their clause to restrict demonstrations is in accordance with the Home Affairs Committee's report. It is not, if my memory serves me right. That report referred to national legislation not breaking the principle whereby local legislation deals with certain things, and criminal law and the right to demonstrate is dealt with at national level.
Paragraph 6 of the statement in support of consideration gives a brief rundown of the historical appearance before the House of various Bills, some of which contain clauses, some of which require three days' notice, some of which require 24 hours' notice, some of which require 48 hours' notice, some of which managed to get through the House with the clause intact, and some of which did not. I am glad to say that it was in the Kent Bill that the clause was


dropped. Paragraph 6, which I shall not quote because I do not want to detain the House, shows the need for a comprehensive consideration by the House.
It is nonsense that this sort of clause, which is highly contentious nationally—it is highly contentious locally but I will not trespass on the local point—should be put into a local Bill. What we need is a comprehensive review of the right and freedom to demonstrate, starting with writing in a statutory right rather than writing statutory limitations into local Bills.
Clause 8 provides—and this is the nub—
In Nottinghamshire the police attach importance to the continuation of the present system for prior notification.
I am afraid that the pressure for this clause has come from the police in Nottinghamshire. I must tell the police in Nottinghamshire that it is not for them to decide the limits of the right to demonstrate and the ambit of the criminal law. It is for us in this House to decide something which is of national importance, as I believe this to be.

Mr. Concannon: I wish that my hon. Friend would think a little about what she is saying. The people on the Nottinghamshire county council are elected. Some of them are very fine, upstanding citizens of Nottinghamshire. To say they are in the hands of local officials or of the chief of police is impugning some of the finest people we have had in the Labour party for more than 50 years. She is saying things like this about my friends, my agent, county councillors, and people like Bill Morris. I am sure that when they read Hansard they will flip straight through the roof.

Ms. Harman: I cannot sufficiently emphasise that I genuinely do not want to criticise in any way the local county council, but I have to say that I believe most sincerely—and it is my right to say it—that they are wrong. That is why this Bill has come to this Chamber today, to give Members of Parliament who believe that something which is not appropriate for a local Bill should not be in it the opportunity to say so.
I should like briefly to go through some of the points in the clause. Subsection (2) makes it a criminal offence for a procession to pass through any street in the county which has not been notified. Deviation from the route can be a criminal offence, even if the demonstration is perfectly peaceful. Should we really be in the business of saying that it is a criminal offence to deviate from the route of a demonstration? Suppose a march starts in one county and ends up in another. The people organising the march, if it is a national march, would have to deal with a patchwork of different legal rights in different counties. That shows how wrong it would be. The fact that it says:
Nothing in this section shall apply to a procession —commonly or customarily held;
favours entrenched opinion at the expense of new movements and ideas.
The code of practice says:
For the furtherance of co-operation between the organisers of processions and the police, the chief constable shall issue a code of practice giving guidance to the organizers…
We have experience of such codes of practice in the west midlands, and I must say that, even though I knew quite a bit about the west midlands clause requiring notice of demonstrations, when I read the west midlands code of practice—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is there in being a draft of the Nottingham code which we can discuss rather than having to refer to the west midlands one?

Ms. Harman: I am afraid that my local knowledge is not such that I know whether there is in being a draft, but if I can comment on the example that we do know about from an identical clause—

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend should be aware that when the Bill went to Committee to be considered there was no draft code to present to a Committee of this House which was supposed to be giving it detailed scrutiny. I assume that by now there will be one and that when the promoters reply they will quote from the draft code and make copies available to us.

Ms. Harman: The code of practice in the Bill relating to the west midlands was made under an identical clause. I had to take it up with the chief constable as it merged statutory requirements which were laid down in that Bill with other requirements which the chief constable thought desirable. As a result, it looked as though the level of stewarding, for example, was as much of a statutory requirement as the statutory requirements. Therefore, inclusion of a code of practice would give the chief constable an opportunity to write in rules which have not been presented to the House.
If the code of practice is important it should already have been drafted and it should have been presented to the House in an annexe to the Bill. If it is so important, we should see what it is, as it is a quasi-statutory document. If the code of practice is not important, why is one provided for in clause 6? I suggest that it has been included as a means of deflecting opposition to a restriction. That has not worked. It simply makes matters worse. So does clause 6(5), which provides:
Proceedings shall not be instituted for any offence under this section unless the proceedings are institued by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It was said by none other than Lord Reid in 1973 that a bad law is not defensible on the ground that it will be judiciously administered. Therefore, having a bad and restrictive clause and saying, "Do not worry, we will have a good code of guidance," which, incidentally, the House has not seen, is not good enough. Moreover, having a bad law and saying, "Do not worry, we shall not have any old police force implementing it," because it will not be possible to prosecute without the permission of the DPP just shows what a mess all this is. The DPP is a national officer, so the issue cannot be particularly local or such consent would not be required. The council has given the game away on that as well.
I hope that the House will recognise the importance of the right to demonstrate in terms of civil liberties. I hope also that the House will not be caught up on the idea that everything which the council puts in the Bill is appropriate to such a Bill simply because it is elected locally and knows its area better than any of us. We must insist that we have the opportunity to draw the line. We should ask that the provision be removed. The support that the council has claimed in Green Papers and in Select Committees does not exist. I therefore hope, with all deference and respect to the Labour group in Nottinghamshire, that it will recognise that it is wrong.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend emphasise the fact that, as was argued earlier, this is not a local clause in the sense that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understood the hon. Lady to have finished her speech and I did not call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has just given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is, That the amendment be made. Mr. Bob Clay.

Mr. Clay: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who concluded by saying that although this might be a local matter it affects other local authorities. I do not want to discuss how Labour groups in Nottinghamshire make their decisions but, rather, to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said.
I have some experience of how officers in other local authorities try to bend the ears of Labour councillors. As a trade union official, a member of the Labour party and now as a Member of Parliament I try to bend the ears of Labour and other councillors in different directions. However decisions are reached in Nottingham, if such contentious clauses exist, officers in other authorities will say, "Nottinghamshire has such a clause and it is Labour-controlled." Therefore, this is not just a parochial Nottinghamshire issue.
Some local government officers will say that Nottingham, which is Labour-controlled, has this provision but will omit to mention that many other Labour-controlled authorities do not. Unfortunately, because many Labour councillors, in my area as much as in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), are miners and shipyard workers—they are not all unemployed yet, but are busy people who work and attend council meetings afterwards —when officers whisper things in their ears and try to baffle them with science, even the most superb Labour councilors—

Mr. Concannon: We must destroy the myth about Labour county councillors in Nottinghamshire. They are not a bunch of idiots, but people who have served the community for many years. I take strong exception when it is said that they are manipulated by people who have neither the opportunity nor the guile to manipulate them.

Mr. Clay: I was referring, not to those on the receiving end of the advice, but to those who give it. I was not imputing that to our colleagues in the Nottinghamshire Labour group or to any other Labour group, but was simply saying that councillors have a difficult job.

Mr. Skinner: In respect of local interests, we are not representing a view which may be unique to Nottingham elected councillors. The clause cannot be local, because it is repeated in countless Bills stretching back over the years. On the question of local opinion, we can argue that some upstanding citizens in the various trade councils in Nottingham have made protests about the Bill. Nearly every trade union in Nottingham has asked people such as ourselves to do their level best to remove the clause from the Bill. It cannot be argued that we are acting without support in the locallity. All the trade councils in Nottinghamshire—they represent all the trade unions—have come down on the side of those who are trying to remove the clause.

Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment, which I could not have put better. I am worried about what could happen in my area.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to put it better'? If the internal problems of the Labour party are such that all the people listed are against the Bill, and yet, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made clear, a city council with a Labour majority has asked Conservatives to put its case for it, this is not democracy at work, but lunacy.

Mr. Clay: I shall ignore that point.
A spontaneous demonstration took place recently by shipyard workers. They received a telephone call in their shop steward's office in the shipyard saying that national negotiations were taking place in Newcastle the following day. That gave them less than 24 hours' notice. Due to the turmoil in the shipbuilding industry, negotiations on a national and local level take place in that way.
It is not strange that those shipyard shop stewards and others were anxious to express their view to the leaders of their union. A Committee is currently meeting upstairs to discuss the so-called Trade Union Bill, which is meant to be about trade union democracy, but which is about the opposite. The shipyard workers had an opportunity to march to the meeting place of their leaders to give them advice. The advice was written on placards, which said things like, "15 per cent. and no strings", "No closures", and "No sell-outs". Ten thousand marchers went to Denton House in Newcastle and stood outside to communicate their opinions, arrived at democratically, to their leaders.
That is the sort of thing that can happen with far less than 24 hours' notice. If there had been such a clause in a Bill for Tyne and Wear, it would have been impossible for the shipyard workers to do that, unless the shop stewards were placed in the invidious position of having to say to their members, "We want you to go on a demonstration about saving your jobs. It may be a criminal offence. The union will probably get you a good lawyer if you are charged, so please take the chance." One cannot organise expressions of opinion on that basis.
We have already had illustrations of what can happen at times of grave international tension. We did not have notice of cruise missiles being brought into the country or of incidents such as the Cuban missile crisis. Even the Government did not have notice of the American invasion of Grenada.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend has given an excellent example of the problems that could face workers in the north-east and drawn a parallel with possible future problems in Nottingham. We both sat on the Committee which took evidence from trade union organisers in the Nottingham area. They gave examples of the closure of health facilities and of visits to the region by Tory Ministers when only minutes' notice, let alone hours' notice, was given. If the clause were passed, those spontaneous demonstrations would not only be illegal, but the demonstrators could be subject to a fine, not of £5, as it was in 1977, nor of £50, as it was after then, but of £200, which will be the penalty if the Bill is passed.

Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That leads me to my penultimate point—

Ms. Harman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of trade union organisers and


members have great respect for the law? If they are told by a police officer that their action might be against the law, will there not be an immediate freeze and a cooling-off period?

Mr. Clay: I agree with my hon. Friend. It could be argued that some people in the higher echelons of the trade union movement have had too great a respect for the law in some recent cases. In my experience, trade union representatives and officials have never lacked respect for the law.
As has been said on many occasions, people may be expecting a visit from a personality. I recall occasions when shipbuilders were told that a leading public figure would launch a ship, but sometimes we were not told who it would be until the day before. Nowadays, it would be nice to have some ships to launch. If the personality turns out to be a Tory Minister, or even the Prime Minister—as has happened in Sunderland—do not people have the right to organise a spontaneous demonstration? They would not organise a demonstration if it were Princess Anne or another member of the royal family, but if it is a leading politician, people have the right to organise demonstrations. The clause makes it too easy for Members of Parliament and Ministers to visit an area with practically no notice, which makes it impossible to organise democratic demonstrations.
It is ironic that if the clause had been in operation when the Polish shipyard workers demonstrated at Stettin in the early 1970s they would have been committing a criminal offence. In the 1980s the Lenin yard was occupied, shipyard workers started to march from Gdansk and went to other shipyards, and the trade union Solidarity was born. All that activity was illegal in Poland.
The House is considering a clause which would make such activities illegal here. We have heard a good deal of cant and hypocrisy from Conservative Members about trade union freedom in Poland. The birth of that trade union movement rested on a combination of factory occupations and spontaneous demonstrations about the price of meat and other commodities and about things that were happening in the work places—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 24 January.

Ashfield Skillcentre

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do new adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

10 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am concerned about the serious situation in the town of Kirkby-in-Ashfield in my constituency and about what is happening to skillcentres throughout the country. From time to time the Government tell us that people must expect to have to transfer from a job that they may have been doing for many years to a new job, because of closures of factories or pits. Those people have to be retrained. More often than not, they turn to the skillcentre in their area.
Since 1979, a number of skillcentres have closed down because it is Government policy to save public expenditure. When some skillcentres are closed down, the catchment area of the remaining skillcentres is extended. Some skillcentres are very successful, but the Manpower Services Commission makes announcements which appear to have been prompted by the Department of Employment and by Government policy in relation to training and the closure of skillcentres.
The skillcentre in my constituency is first class. For instance, 95·5 per cent. of bricklayers trained in the centre have found jobs, and 87 per cent. of carpenters and joiners have found work. For those trained in motor vehicle repair and maintenance the figure is 61·5 per cent., for heavy vehicle repair and maintenance 71·4 per cent. for agricultural machinery repair and maintenance 80 per cent., for plating metal fabrication 77·8 per cent. and for sheet metal work 85·7 per cent. I do not need to read all the figures. It is clear that the Ashfield skillcentre is successful. No doubt other skillcentres are being equally successful in providing a valuable service for those changing their jobs. There will be pit closures in future in my constituency. In the House, I have said time and again that the National Coal Board cannot continue to move men to other units from pits that have closed down. Pits cannot keep soaking those men up. There must come a time when the NCB will say, "I am sorry, that's it. You're fininshed." However, the skillcentre is available for retraining men for other jobs.
Therefore, the first and all-important question is whether the Government are planning further skillcentre closures with particular reference to Kirkby. I have information showing that private industry, which uses the skillcentre at Kirkby, often writes to thank if for the retraining or upgrading that it has carried out. No doubt the same is true elsewhere. I have numerous letters from firms that are very grateful for the help that they have been given. They say that they will continue to use the skillcentre at Kirkby.
I shall cite just one letter, because of the shortage of time. It says:
I would like to express my appreciation for the high standard of training which the skillcentre has provided recently for a number of our employees.
That was written by Mardon Illingworth, a national organisation. It continued:
The knowledge, confidence and experience gained have proved to be extremely beneficial and useful to us. In addition to providing similar courses in the future, we would be very interested in supporting courses which would provide further training for our mechanics and engineers in the field of pneumatics and hydraulics. Perhaps you will give this matter


some serious thought when compiling a programme of courses to suit the needs of local industry. Thank you once again for your kind assistance and co-operation".
I have a number of letters in a similar vein. Hermitage, which is based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), sends workers to the skillcentre. Kodak has a massive development in my constituency, and is moving everything from Hertfordshire into the middle of it. I have even received a letter from the East Midlands Engineering Employers Association which is in exactly the same vein as the others.
The planned rundown of the skillcentre in Kirkby as well, no doubt, as other skillcentres, means that the Government must intend to close the centre completely. The figures provided by the Manpower Services Commission show that, if the proposals go ahead, Kirkby skill centre will be used to only 36 per cent. of its capacity. It would seem that some parts of it will be moved out. Despite the tremendous success of engineering and the figures that I have given, it is apparently intended to move that section away while at the same time giving the Government the opportunity to do what they want—to close the skillcentre. Yet the professional instructors there provide a first-class service. It is praise all round. The people in my constituency are up in arms. A publicity campaign has been organised not by the people, trade unionists or Member of Parliament, but by the local press. They are disgusted with some of the suggestions made about running down the skillcentre with a view to closure.
This important matter is related to the debate on Tuesday on rate-capping. One might ask what rate-capping has to do with the Ashfield skillcentre. That matter is important because if the Government close the skillcentre — I hope that we shall receive a straight answer from the Minister—£34,000 of rates will have been taken from the Ashfield district council. All local authorities are being told to keep their rates down because if they go over the top they will be penalised. If the skillcentre is closed, Ashfield district council must find another 34,000 quid. That will mean increasing rates—the Government does not like doing that—so that it can draw in the £34,000 necessary to carry out services in the locality.
The catchment area is massive. If the skillcentre closes, people must travel long distances to get to the nearest skillcentre in north Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Kesteven, Lindsey and north Lincolnshire — for example, to areas in the top of Lincolnshire such as in Mablethorpe and Skegness. If the suggestions are correct, appalling circumstances will be created. If this system is run down to a great extent the community of Kirkby and the people who use that skillcentre will face a serious problem. I hope that we shall receive a straight answer from the Minister.
Much training that cannot be provided elsewhere can be provided at the Kirkby skillcentre. Only today, I was told that services not being provided elsewhere will be provided at Kirkby. I have information about a new type of knitting machine. That is important, because my constituency has a hosiery and knitwear industry. From time to time, firms send their employees to the skillcentre for retraining because new technology is coming into the industry. Kirkby can provide such a service, and the local private industry is crying out for it all the time. Hon. Members have often talked about the hosiery and knitwear

industry being on the floor. To a certain extent, it is still on the floor. We must give that industry the opportunity to retrain people when new technology is being used so that the industry can keep going, become a success and an asset to the nation's exports.
I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that other hon. Members wanted to contribute. This matter may have come on earlier than expected because of what happened previously today. I have said my piece, and I shall give someone else an opportunity to have a word about this matter. It had been arranged with me—I know that you are preparing yourself to ask me about this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for other hon. Members to speak. Some hon. Members have approached me with a view to making a short contribution in the hope that it will help the Minister to say the right thing when he replies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. PaulDean): Order. 1 am grateful to the hon. Member for that information. I must protect his Adjournment debate, but in view of what he has said I understand that he and the Minister agree that other hon. Members may intervene briefly.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate. Although the skillcentre is in my hon. Friend's constituency, it serves a very wide area. Indeed, he mentioned firms in my constituency among its main users.
Our area has been a prosperous one for so long that we have always looked upon the National Coal Board as the centre providing training in the various skills needed in the area, but that is no longer the case. That is why the skillcentre came to the area. It is extremely well used by private industry and has an excellent record. It is clear that in the future our area, too, will suffer the effects of the recession. Therefore, far from closing or diminishing the skillcentre, the Minister should seek to extend it as much as possible. The centre already covers a wide area, including the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), and indeed most of Nottinghamshire.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield on obtaining this debate and by raising this important matter, doing a great service to Nottinghamshire, which has had a fair run in the House since 7 pm.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall be brief, as I appreciate the time problem. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on taking the opportunity to raise this important issue. I reiterate his comments about the constant threats emanating from Ian MacGregor and the Tory Government over pit closures. Their attack on the Kirkby skillcentre flies in the face of their own policy, because in those circumstances any Government worth its salt should be seeking to increase opportunities for retraining rather than reducing them.
Since I came back to the House this week I have been fed up with hearing the constant cries of the Tory Government that a boom is on the way and things are looking up. The Tory press has followed the same line, suggesting that everything in the garden is rosy. One reads


the same thing in headline after headline, but underneath we are witnessing the mass destruction of British industry. Not content with that, the Tories are now telling the workers thrown on to the scrap heap that the Government are putting a stop to retraining opportunities as well.

Mr. AndyStewart: I reiterate what has been said by my two colleagues from Nottinghamshire about the skillcentre. It is a wide-ranging centre, attracting people from a large area. In view of the time, I simply express my support for the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond accordingly.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for raising this important subject. I am also delighted that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) could be here to discuss it. I certainly welcome their interest. I know that the hon. Member for Ashfield recently took the trouble to visit the skillcentre in his constituency, and I entirely support his tribute to its past achievements. I appreciate the sentiments contained in the letter that he quoted from one of the employers whose employees had benefited from its services in the past. I also agree about the importance of improving this country's training performance, a matter on which the hon. Gentleman was most definite in his opening remarks.
I hope that, like the hon. Member for Ashfield, I shall be permitted to put the matters raised into the context of our developing strategy for adult training and the birth of the Skillcentre Training Agency. The adult training strategy on which the Manpower Services Commission put its proposals to the Government last November is specifically designed to meet the changing demands of industry and to ensure that the work force is as well equipped as possible to meet the challenges of new technology as patterns in the labour market and the economy as a whole develop and change.
The Government and others involved — employers, training providers and the individual trainees—must find more effective ways to meet the new training needs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is no use sticking to a system designed generations ago when things are no longer the same.
We have to move towards a system that is designed for today's skill needs. I hope that all hon. Gentlemen will accept that too many adults up to now have been denied the opportunity to acquire skills on, indeed, to practise those skills when they have been acquired. I look on the Government and the Manpower Services Commission as being a catalyst for change. They are there to encourage everyone to take action to improve skill training at national and local levels.
We therefore have to explore new approaches because developing technology, which is going apace, means that people need to retrain or update their skills during their working life perhaps as many as three or four times. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that point. We

have to design what I can loosely describe as new and acceptable ways to train, beginning with the foundation of skill training on which people can build later. I do not intend now to go into the youth training scheme, but that is the beginning of it.
The open tech is a good example of how successful we are in going into this sort of area because it means that open and distant learning will provide people with the opportunity to upgrade their skills without full-time training. I hope that employers—I say this as often as I can—will understand more and more that to keep their work force up to date is not only a good but a worthwhile investment. Flexible training provision allows individuals to learn at their own pace and when they choose. The Manpower Services Commission's proposals are that the TOPS-type training would continue but would be, like other new programmes, more job-related and more market-oriented.
I want to assure the House that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, we have maintained our expenditure on adult training, but how that expenditure is spent is equally vital. The money must give good and relevant training to as many people as possible. I am sure that all hon. Gentlemen would agree with that. It is a bad use of taxpayers money not to spend that money effectively, and it is a bad use on behalf of potential trainees.
it is important to separate within the Manpower Services Commission the commissioning and provision of training. That is why it was decided that we would set up the Skillcentre Training Agency as a separate unit within the MSC which will operate on a full cost recovery basis to ensure that we have proper value for money. The agency is in the market place just like any other training provider so that the maximum number of trainees may be trained to the quality we want. The onus is on the new agency, part of which is the Kirkby skillcentre, to which the hon. Gentleman is clearly referring, to provide training of the right type and quality at the right price and, indeed, training that is responsive to local employment needs. The agency will continue to be free to sell its training provision to other providers or other employers just like the training division of the MSC.
The skillcentre network was, I believe, very successful for a long period until a few years ago. The evidence now, however, is that it is not meeting the needs of industry, and that is demonstrated by the low rate of trainees coming out of the skillcentres who get jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not fair to train people for jobs that they will not get at the end of their training. It is better to direct the resources that we have more effectively to meet the skill needs of today and therefore to make a more efficient use of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: If the criterion of success of training, according to the Minister, is how many people get jobs after their period of training, the House will be interested to know how many people are getting jobs in all the range of training in the present economic disaster that has been caused by Tory economic policy.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman makes a party political point when I am trying to deal with the matter seriously.

Mr. Sheerman: What is the criterion of success?

Mr. Morrison: The criterion of success is that training is relevant to trainees getting jobs at the end. The Government's strategy and the MSC proposals are directed to that end, but that may have consequences about which the hon. Gentleman and I may not agree.

Mr. Sheerman: Including the YTS?

Mr. Morrison: We shall see when the YTS figures become available.
A follow-up of ex-trainees at Kirkby-in-Ashfield in the quarter ending June 1983 showed that only 45 per cent. had jobs in the trade in which they trained. Another 12 per cent. over and above that had other jobs. Of course I am pleased that just over 50 per cent. had found jobs of some sort, but one must ask about the other half who did not get jobs at all. Did we provide a good service for them? Did we raise expectations, then to see them dashed? The hon. Member for Ashfield gave some interesting statistics about certain courses, and I shall look carefully at them because his figures and mine do not exactly relate to each other.
The skillcentre at Kirkby-in-Ashfield has done well compared with the situation nationally. My figures show that the average for Great Britain, compared with the 45 per cent. for Kirkby-in-Ashfield, is 43 per cent. in jobs in the trade in which they trained and 56 per cent. in any job at all, so the skillcentre there has done marginally better than the average as a whole.
As for the immediate future of the Kirkby-in-Ashfield skillcentre— it is a mediium-sized skillcentre, with a capacity of 164 places, employing 40 staff— it has a range of different facilities for craft level training, many of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It has an annexe at Chesterfield which is financed jointly with the local authority. The main customer of the skillcentre is the TOPS programme and discussions with the Kirkby-in-Ashfield skillentre are still going on to establish the precise number of places for TOPS trainees in the next financial year. It is likely to be only about 50 per cent. of the 134 places currently allocated to TOPS training.
The shortfall arises first, because the centre has an unusually high emphasis on traditional engineering and

automotive provision secondly, because there is another skillcentre in the Nottingham training division's area with comparable facilities, including engineering, only about 20 miles away at Long Eaton; and thirdly because the demand for craft level manufacturing skills in the midlands has fallen more sharply than in other regions and is likely to remain at a low level.
Skillcentres are not the only providers of TOPS training in Nottinghamshire. The level of training support will be broadly maintained in the county using other providers who can meet the MSC's needs— 1,834 unemployed people next year will go through the TOPS scheme compared with 1,856 this year. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield will appreciate that this is not a private versus public sector argument. It is a question of getting the right training of the right quality at the right price from whoever is best able to provide it.
Last year skillcentres trained about 40 per cent. of those in TOPS. Next year this will fall to about one third. Almost three quarters of those undergoing TOPS will be on courses either providing or building on existing occupational skills. The remainder will either be trained in business skills or be helped to find employment using their existing skills by improving their job hunting abilities.
To sum up, there will be a significant shortfall in income from TOPS as against overall operating costs at Kirkby-in-Ashfield skillcentre in the year ahead. The demand for training in traditional mechanical engineering and automotive trades is, as I said, declining, and as a consequence the business being offered to skillcertres by their main customer, TOPS, is reducing. This has a particular effect at Kirkby, where these trades predominate.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock